Neurology Reviews

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An initial choice of disease-modifying therapy for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) does not appear to have a large effect on eventual progression of disability and patient-reported outcomes, according to recent research published in Annals of Neurology.

Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and colleagues analyzed results from a cohort study in Sweden of 2449 patients with relapsing-remitting MS who started an initial disease-modifying therapy (DMT), and 2463 patients who switched from their first therapy between 2011 and 2018, with 1148 patients overlapping in both groups. DMTs evaluated in the group that started an initial treatment included rituximab (591 patients), natalizumab (334 patients), dimethyl fumarate (416 patients), interferon (992 patients), and glatiramer acetate (116 patients), while DMTs included in the group switching therapies were rituximab (748 patients), natalizumab (541 patients), dimethyl fumarate (570 patients), fingolimod (443 patients), and teriflunomide (161 patients).

The researchers compared patients receiving low-dose rituximab with other MS therapies, with confirmed disability worsening (CDW) over 12 months and change in disease-related impact on daily life as measured by MS Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) subscales as primary outcomes at 3 years after therapy initiation or switching. They also assessed the rate of relapse, discontinuation of therapy, and serious adverse events as secondary outcomes.

At 3 years, among patients who received rituximab, 9.1% of patients who initiated therapy and 5.1% who switched therapy experienced CDW, and there were no significant differences in disease worsening between patients who received rituximab and those who received other MS therapies. “Most instances of CDW on rituximab were in subjects with no relapse within 3 years of treatment start,” the researchers said.

Patient MSIS-29 physical subscores at 3 years improved by 1.3 points in the initial DMT group and by 0.4 points in the DMT-switching group, while MSIS-29 psychological scores improved by 8.4 points in the initial DMT and by 3.6 points in the DMT-switching group. “Adjusted for baseline characteristics, MSIS-29 physical subscale scores decreased more with natalizumab, both as a first DMT and after a DMT switch, compared with rituximab, although absolute differences were small,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.

With regard to secondary outcomes, there was a reduction in mean overall Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group at 3 years (–0.2 points), with 28.7% of patients experiencing improvement and 19.0% experiencing worsening, while there was no overall change in mean EDSS score in the rituximab-switching group. At 5 years, mean EDSS scores decreased compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group (–0.1 point), with 27.1% patients experiencing improvement and 20.8% experiencing worsening, and there was an increase in overall EDSS score (0.1 point) at 5 years for the rituximab-switching group, with improvement in 17.9% of patients and worsening in 26.4% of patients. However, there were no significant differences between rituximab and other DMTs.

Patients in both initial and switching rituximab groups had a lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) compared with other DMTs, with the exception of natalizumab in the initial DMT group (3 vs 2 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). The highest ARR in the initial DMT group belonged to interferon (13 additional relapses per 100 patients per year) and teriflunomide (8 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). “Similar differences were evident also at 5 years, with significantly higher ARRs with all other DMTs compared with rituximab, except for natalizumab, in both the first DMT and DMT switch groups,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.

In the group of patients who received rituximab, 75.7% of patients had no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) at 3 years in the initial DMT group and 82.1% of patients in the DMT-switching group, which was “greater than for all comparators, except natalizumab as a first DMT,” the researchers said. “Proportions fulfilling NEDA-3 status at 5 years were higher with rituximab than with all comparators in both cohorts,” they noted.

Concerning safety, the researchers said there were minor differences in safety outcomes between rituximab and comparators, but patients in the DMT-switching group who received rituximab had a higher risk of severe infections compared with other groups.
 

Unanswered Questions About MS Therapies

In an interview, Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates, New York, who was not involved in the study, emphasized the importance of high-potency DMTs and adherence for treatment success.

“Lower-efficacy DMT might result in insufficient suppression of disease activity that might not be clinically apparent,” he said. “Routine examination is not sufficient to detect cognitive impairment or change in cognitive impact of disease. Adherence is critical to therapy success, and infusion therapies or treatment not self-administered have higher likelihood of higher adherence rates.”

Commenting on the study by Piehl et al, Dr. Gudesblatt said it “provides important real-world information” on how infusion therapies are tolerated, their effectiveness, and their adherence compared with oral or self-administered treatments. For rituximab, “just as importantly, this therapy provides effective disease control with less accumulated disability and disability related health care costs,” he said.

Dr. Gudesblatt said there are several unanswered issues in the study, including the uncertain nature of the incidence and development of rituximab-blocking antibodies, which could potentially differ by biosimilar. “[H]ow this impacts therapy efficacy is unclear,” he said. “The presence of blocking antibodies should be routinely monitored.”

Another issue is the between-patient variation in degree of B-cell depletion and speed of B-cell repletion, which might differ based on therapy duration. “The timing and frequency of dosing is an issue that also needs further critical analysis and improved guidelines,” he noted.

Dr. Gudesblatt said up to 25% of patients with MS might have unrecognized immune deficiency. “[I]mmune deficiency unrelated to DMT as well as the development of immune deficiency related to DMT are issues of concern, as the rate of infections in B-cell depleting agents are higher than other class of DMT,” he explained. Patients with MS who develop infections carry significant risk of morbidity and mortality, he added.

“Lastly, the issue of vaccination failure is extremely high in B-cell depleting agents, and with the recent viral pandemic and lingering concerns about recurrent similar scenarios, this is another issue of great concern with use of this highly adherent and effective DMT choice,” Dr. Gudesblatt said.

Several authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, research support, honoraria, advisory board positions, travel support, and other fees for Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Teva. Dr. Gudesblatt reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

An initial choice of disease-modifying therapy for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) does not appear to have a large effect on eventual progression of disability and patient-reported outcomes, according to recent research published in Annals of Neurology.

Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and colleagues analyzed results from a cohort study in Sweden of 2449 patients with relapsing-remitting MS who started an initial disease-modifying therapy (DMT), and 2463 patients who switched from their first therapy between 2011 and 2018, with 1148 patients overlapping in both groups. DMTs evaluated in the group that started an initial treatment included rituximab (591 patients), natalizumab (334 patients), dimethyl fumarate (416 patients), interferon (992 patients), and glatiramer acetate (116 patients), while DMTs included in the group switching therapies were rituximab (748 patients), natalizumab (541 patients), dimethyl fumarate (570 patients), fingolimod (443 patients), and teriflunomide (161 patients).

The researchers compared patients receiving low-dose rituximab with other MS therapies, with confirmed disability worsening (CDW) over 12 months and change in disease-related impact on daily life as measured by MS Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) subscales as primary outcomes at 3 years after therapy initiation or switching. They also assessed the rate of relapse, discontinuation of therapy, and serious adverse events as secondary outcomes.

At 3 years, among patients who received rituximab, 9.1% of patients who initiated therapy and 5.1% who switched therapy experienced CDW, and there were no significant differences in disease worsening between patients who received rituximab and those who received other MS therapies. “Most instances of CDW on rituximab were in subjects with no relapse within 3 years of treatment start,” the researchers said.

Patient MSIS-29 physical subscores at 3 years improved by 1.3 points in the initial DMT group and by 0.4 points in the DMT-switching group, while MSIS-29 psychological scores improved by 8.4 points in the initial DMT and by 3.6 points in the DMT-switching group. “Adjusted for baseline characteristics, MSIS-29 physical subscale scores decreased more with natalizumab, both as a first DMT and after a DMT switch, compared with rituximab, although absolute differences were small,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.

With regard to secondary outcomes, there was a reduction in mean overall Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group at 3 years (–0.2 points), with 28.7% of patients experiencing improvement and 19.0% experiencing worsening, while there was no overall change in mean EDSS score in the rituximab-switching group. At 5 years, mean EDSS scores decreased compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group (–0.1 point), with 27.1% patients experiencing improvement and 20.8% experiencing worsening, and there was an increase in overall EDSS score (0.1 point) at 5 years for the rituximab-switching group, with improvement in 17.9% of patients and worsening in 26.4% of patients. However, there were no significant differences between rituximab and other DMTs.

Patients in both initial and switching rituximab groups had a lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) compared with other DMTs, with the exception of natalizumab in the initial DMT group (3 vs 2 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). The highest ARR in the initial DMT group belonged to interferon (13 additional relapses per 100 patients per year) and teriflunomide (8 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). “Similar differences were evident also at 5 years, with significantly higher ARRs with all other DMTs compared with rituximab, except for natalizumab, in both the first DMT and DMT switch groups,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.

In the group of patients who received rituximab, 75.7% of patients had no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) at 3 years in the initial DMT group and 82.1% of patients in the DMT-switching group, which was “greater than for all comparators, except natalizumab as a first DMT,” the researchers said. “Proportions fulfilling NEDA-3 status at 5 years were higher with rituximab than with all comparators in both cohorts,” they noted.

Concerning safety, the researchers said there were minor differences in safety outcomes between rituximab and comparators, but patients in the DMT-switching group who received rituximab had a higher risk of severe infections compared with other groups.
 

Unanswered Questions About MS Therapies

In an interview, Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates, New York, who was not involved in the study, emphasized the importance of high-potency DMTs and adherence for treatment success.

“Lower-efficacy DMT might result in insufficient suppression of disease activity that might not be clinically apparent,” he said. “Routine examination is not sufficient to detect cognitive impairment or change in cognitive impact of disease. Adherence is critical to therapy success, and infusion therapies or treatment not self-administered have higher likelihood of higher adherence rates.”

Commenting on the study by Piehl et al, Dr. Gudesblatt said it “provides important real-world information” on how infusion therapies are tolerated, their effectiveness, and their adherence compared with oral or self-administered treatments. For rituximab, “just as importantly, this therapy provides effective disease control with less accumulated disability and disability related health care costs,” he said.

Dr. Gudesblatt said there are several unanswered issues in the study, including the uncertain nature of the incidence and development of rituximab-blocking antibodies, which could potentially differ by biosimilar. “[H]ow this impacts therapy efficacy is unclear,” he said. “The presence of blocking antibodies should be routinely monitored.”

Another issue is the between-patient variation in degree of B-cell depletion and speed of B-cell repletion, which might differ based on therapy duration. “The timing and frequency of dosing is an issue that also needs further critical analysis and improved guidelines,” he noted.

Dr. Gudesblatt said up to 25% of patients with MS might have unrecognized immune deficiency. “[I]mmune deficiency unrelated to DMT as well as the development of immune deficiency related to DMT are issues of concern, as the rate of infections in B-cell depleting agents are higher than other class of DMT,” he explained. Patients with MS who develop infections carry significant risk of morbidity and mortality, he added.

“Lastly, the issue of vaccination failure is extremely high in B-cell depleting agents, and with the recent viral pandemic and lingering concerns about recurrent similar scenarios, this is another issue of great concern with use of this highly adherent and effective DMT choice,” Dr. Gudesblatt said.

Several authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, research support, honoraria, advisory board positions, travel support, and other fees for Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Teva. Dr. Gudesblatt reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

An initial choice of disease-modifying therapy for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) does not appear to have a large effect on eventual progression of disability and patient-reported outcomes, according to recent research published in Annals of Neurology.

Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and colleagues analyzed results from a cohort study in Sweden of 2449 patients with relapsing-remitting MS who started an initial disease-modifying therapy (DMT), and 2463 patients who switched from their first therapy between 2011 and 2018, with 1148 patients overlapping in both groups. DMTs evaluated in the group that started an initial treatment included rituximab (591 patients), natalizumab (334 patients), dimethyl fumarate (416 patients), interferon (992 patients), and glatiramer acetate (116 patients), while DMTs included in the group switching therapies were rituximab (748 patients), natalizumab (541 patients), dimethyl fumarate (570 patients), fingolimod (443 patients), and teriflunomide (161 patients).

The researchers compared patients receiving low-dose rituximab with other MS therapies, with confirmed disability worsening (CDW) over 12 months and change in disease-related impact on daily life as measured by MS Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) subscales as primary outcomes at 3 years after therapy initiation or switching. They also assessed the rate of relapse, discontinuation of therapy, and serious adverse events as secondary outcomes.

At 3 years, among patients who received rituximab, 9.1% of patients who initiated therapy and 5.1% who switched therapy experienced CDW, and there were no significant differences in disease worsening between patients who received rituximab and those who received other MS therapies. “Most instances of CDW on rituximab were in subjects with no relapse within 3 years of treatment start,” the researchers said.

Patient MSIS-29 physical subscores at 3 years improved by 1.3 points in the initial DMT group and by 0.4 points in the DMT-switching group, while MSIS-29 psychological scores improved by 8.4 points in the initial DMT and by 3.6 points in the DMT-switching group. “Adjusted for baseline characteristics, MSIS-29 physical subscale scores decreased more with natalizumab, both as a first DMT and after a DMT switch, compared with rituximab, although absolute differences were small,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.

With regard to secondary outcomes, there was a reduction in mean overall Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group at 3 years (–0.2 points), with 28.7% of patients experiencing improvement and 19.0% experiencing worsening, while there was no overall change in mean EDSS score in the rituximab-switching group. At 5 years, mean EDSS scores decreased compared with baseline in the initial rituximab group (–0.1 point), with 27.1% patients experiencing improvement and 20.8% experiencing worsening, and there was an increase in overall EDSS score (0.1 point) at 5 years for the rituximab-switching group, with improvement in 17.9% of patients and worsening in 26.4% of patients. However, there were no significant differences between rituximab and other DMTs.

Patients in both initial and switching rituximab groups had a lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) compared with other DMTs, with the exception of natalizumab in the initial DMT group (3 vs 2 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). The highest ARR in the initial DMT group belonged to interferon (13 additional relapses per 100 patients per year) and teriflunomide (8 additional relapses per 100 patients per year). “Similar differences were evident also at 5 years, with significantly higher ARRs with all other DMTs compared with rituximab, except for natalizumab, in both the first DMT and DMT switch groups,” Dr. Piehl and colleagues said.

In the group of patients who received rituximab, 75.7% of patients had no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) at 3 years in the initial DMT group and 82.1% of patients in the DMT-switching group, which was “greater than for all comparators, except natalizumab as a first DMT,” the researchers said. “Proportions fulfilling NEDA-3 status at 5 years were higher with rituximab than with all comparators in both cohorts,” they noted.

Concerning safety, the researchers said there were minor differences in safety outcomes between rituximab and comparators, but patients in the DMT-switching group who received rituximab had a higher risk of severe infections compared with other groups.
 

Unanswered Questions About MS Therapies

In an interview, Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates, New York, who was not involved in the study, emphasized the importance of high-potency DMTs and adherence for treatment success.

“Lower-efficacy DMT might result in insufficient suppression of disease activity that might not be clinically apparent,” he said. “Routine examination is not sufficient to detect cognitive impairment or change in cognitive impact of disease. Adherence is critical to therapy success, and infusion therapies or treatment not self-administered have higher likelihood of higher adherence rates.”

Commenting on the study by Piehl et al, Dr. Gudesblatt said it “provides important real-world information” on how infusion therapies are tolerated, their effectiveness, and their adherence compared with oral or self-administered treatments. For rituximab, “just as importantly, this therapy provides effective disease control with less accumulated disability and disability related health care costs,” he said.

Dr. Gudesblatt said there are several unanswered issues in the study, including the uncertain nature of the incidence and development of rituximab-blocking antibodies, which could potentially differ by biosimilar. “[H]ow this impacts therapy efficacy is unclear,” he said. “The presence of blocking antibodies should be routinely monitored.”

Another issue is the between-patient variation in degree of B-cell depletion and speed of B-cell repletion, which might differ based on therapy duration. “The timing and frequency of dosing is an issue that also needs further critical analysis and improved guidelines,” he noted.

Dr. Gudesblatt said up to 25% of patients with MS might have unrecognized immune deficiency. “[I]mmune deficiency unrelated to DMT as well as the development of immune deficiency related to DMT are issues of concern, as the rate of infections in B-cell depleting agents are higher than other class of DMT,” he explained. Patients with MS who develop infections carry significant risk of morbidity and mortality, he added.

“Lastly, the issue of vaccination failure is extremely high in B-cell depleting agents, and with the recent viral pandemic and lingering concerns about recurrent similar scenarios, this is another issue of great concern with use of this highly adherent and effective DMT choice,” Dr. Gudesblatt said.

Several authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, research support, honoraria, advisory board positions, travel support, and other fees for Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Teva. Dr. Gudesblatt reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage: People with type 2 diabetes who took these drugs had a lower risk of having 10 out of 13 obesity-related cancers, compared to those who used insulin therapy.

That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.

For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.

The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.

Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.

But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.

While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage: People with type 2 diabetes who took these drugs had a lower risk of having 10 out of 13 obesity-related cancers, compared to those who used insulin therapy.

That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.

For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.

The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.

Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.

But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.

While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage: People with type 2 diabetes who took these drugs had a lower risk of having 10 out of 13 obesity-related cancers, compared to those who used insulin therapy.

That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.

For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.

The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.

Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.

But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.

While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Recently, the British Journal of General Practice published a paper that claimed that anxiety may be a prodromal feature of Parkinson’s disease). That news was widely picked up and spread.

The researchers certainly have some interesting data, but this sort of article, once enough general and social media websites get a hold of it, is bound to cause panic in the streets. And phone calls to my office.

An anxious-by-nature friend even emailed me the link with a laconic “Well, I’m screwed” in the subject line.

Is there a correlation between Parkinson’s disease and anxiety? Probably. Any of us practicing neurology have seen it. Some of it is likely from the anxiety of the situation, but the biochemical changes brought by the disease are also likely a big part.

But does that mean everyone with anxiety has Parkinson’s disease? Of course not. Anxiety is common, probably more common in our current era than ever before (this is why I tell patients not to watch the news and to avoid social media — they’re bad for your sanity and blood pressure).

Stories like this, once they start getting forwarded on Facebook (or another social media outlet), only raise anxiety, which results in more forwarding, and the snowball begins rolling downhill before crashing into my office (obviously this is a figure of speech, as it’s July in Phoenix).

The research is interesting. The point is valid. But the leaps the public makes are ... problematic. It’s only a matter of time before someone comes in demanding a DaT scan because they’re anxious. At $4K a test, that’s not happening.

The intersection between medical research and mass media, while not new, becomes increasingly problematic in the social media era, where things that are preliminary in the medical literature make the jump to certainty in the public arena.

Which raises anxiety all around.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Recently, the British Journal of General Practice published a paper that claimed that anxiety may be a prodromal feature of Parkinson’s disease). That news was widely picked up and spread.

The researchers certainly have some interesting data, but this sort of article, once enough general and social media websites get a hold of it, is bound to cause panic in the streets. And phone calls to my office.

An anxious-by-nature friend even emailed me the link with a laconic “Well, I’m screwed” in the subject line.

Is there a correlation between Parkinson’s disease and anxiety? Probably. Any of us practicing neurology have seen it. Some of it is likely from the anxiety of the situation, but the biochemical changes brought by the disease are also likely a big part.

But does that mean everyone with anxiety has Parkinson’s disease? Of course not. Anxiety is common, probably more common in our current era than ever before (this is why I tell patients not to watch the news and to avoid social media — they’re bad for your sanity and blood pressure).

Stories like this, once they start getting forwarded on Facebook (or another social media outlet), only raise anxiety, which results in more forwarding, and the snowball begins rolling downhill before crashing into my office (obviously this is a figure of speech, as it’s July in Phoenix).

The research is interesting. The point is valid. But the leaps the public makes are ... problematic. It’s only a matter of time before someone comes in demanding a DaT scan because they’re anxious. At $4K a test, that’s not happening.

The intersection between medical research and mass media, while not new, becomes increasingly problematic in the social media era, where things that are preliminary in the medical literature make the jump to certainty in the public arena.

Which raises anxiety all around.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Recently, the British Journal of General Practice published a paper that claimed that anxiety may be a prodromal feature of Parkinson’s disease). That news was widely picked up and spread.

The researchers certainly have some interesting data, but this sort of article, once enough general and social media websites get a hold of it, is bound to cause panic in the streets. And phone calls to my office.

An anxious-by-nature friend even emailed me the link with a laconic “Well, I’m screwed” in the subject line.

Is there a correlation between Parkinson’s disease and anxiety? Probably. Any of us practicing neurology have seen it. Some of it is likely from the anxiety of the situation, but the biochemical changes brought by the disease are also likely a big part.

But does that mean everyone with anxiety has Parkinson’s disease? Of course not. Anxiety is common, probably more common in our current era than ever before (this is why I tell patients not to watch the news and to avoid social media — they’re bad for your sanity and blood pressure).

Stories like this, once they start getting forwarded on Facebook (or another social media outlet), only raise anxiety, which results in more forwarding, and the snowball begins rolling downhill before crashing into my office (obviously this is a figure of speech, as it’s July in Phoenix).

The research is interesting. The point is valid. But the leaps the public makes are ... problematic. It’s only a matter of time before someone comes in demanding a DaT scan because they’re anxious. At $4K a test, that’s not happening.

The intersection between medical research and mass media, while not new, becomes increasingly problematic in the social media era, where things that are preliminary in the medical literature make the jump to certainty in the public arena.

Which raises anxiety all around.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

More than two-thirds of patients with migraine also suffer from neck pain, a combination that’s linked to higher levels of various forms of disability, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.

Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.

Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”

As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”

Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
 

Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability

The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.

For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.

Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).

Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.

Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).

Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P  <  0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).

Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
 

Clinical Messages

The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.

He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.

As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.

If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.

In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”

The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”

Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.

AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.

Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.

More than two-thirds of patients with migraine also suffer from neck pain, a combination that’s linked to higher levels of various forms of disability, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.

Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.

Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”

As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”

Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
 

Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability

The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.

For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.

Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).

Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.

Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).

Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P  <  0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).

Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
 

Clinical Messages

The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.

He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.

As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.

If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.

In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”

The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”

Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.

AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.

Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.

More than two-thirds of patients with migraine also suffer from neck pain, a combination that’s linked to higher levels of various forms of disability, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.

Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.

Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”

As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”

Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
 

Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability

The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.

For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.

Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).

Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.

Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).

Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P  <  0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).

Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
 

Clinical Messages

The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.

He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.

As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.

If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.

In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”

The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”

Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.

AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.

Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City is forcing part-time physicians to sign employment contracts that violate their labor rights, according to a June 2024 complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 

The complaint stems from no-poaching and confidentiality clauses in the agreements required as a condition of employment, NLRB officials alleged.

The contracts state that, for 1 year following termination, part-time physicians may not recruit, solicit, or induce to terminate the employment of any hospital system employee or independent contractor, according to a copy of the terms included in NLRB’s June 18 complaint. 

By requiring the agreements, NLRB officials claimed, Mount Sinai is “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The health system’s “unfair labor practices” affects commerce as outlined under the law, according to the NLRB. The Act bans employers from burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.

Mount Sinai did not respond to requests for comment.

The NLRB’s complaint follows a landmark decision by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. In April 2024, the FTC voted to prohibit noncompetes indefinitely in an effort to protect workers.

“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”

Business groups and agencies have since sued to challenge against the ban, including the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber and other business groups argue that noncompete agreements are important for companies to protect trade secrets, shield recruiting investments, and hide confidential information. The lawsuits are ongoing. 
 

A Physician Blows the Whistle

An anonymous physician first alerted the NLRB to the contract language in November 2023. The doctor was required the sign the hospital system’s agreement for part-time physicians. The complaint does not say if the employee is still employed by the hospital system. 

To remedy the unfair labor practices alleged, the NLRB seeks an order requiring the health system to rescind the contract language, stop any actions against current or former employees to enforce the provisions, and make whole any employees who suffered financial losses related to the contract terms. 

The allegation against Mount Sinai is among a rising number of grievances filed with the NLRB that claim unfair labor practices. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2024, unfair labor practice charges filed across the NLRB’s field offices increased 7% — from 9612 in 2023 to 10,278 in 2024, according to a news release. 

NLRB, meanwhile has been cracking down on anticompetitive labor practices and confidentiality provisions that prevent employees from speaking out. 

In a February 2023 decision for instance, NLRB ruled that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by offering severance agreements to workers that include restrictive confidentiality and nondisparagement terms. In 2022, the NLRB and the Federal Trade Commission forged a partnership to more widely combat unfair, anticompetitive, and deceptive business practices. 

“Noncompete provisions reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a 2023 release. 

Ms. Abruzzo stressed in a memo that NLR Act is committed to an interagency approach to restrictions on the exercise of employee rights, “including limits to workers’ job mobility, information sharing, and referrals to other agencies.” 

Mount Sinai Health System must respond to the NLRB’s complaint by July 16, and an administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on September 24.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City is forcing part-time physicians to sign employment contracts that violate their labor rights, according to a June 2024 complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 

The complaint stems from no-poaching and confidentiality clauses in the agreements required as a condition of employment, NLRB officials alleged.

The contracts state that, for 1 year following termination, part-time physicians may not recruit, solicit, or induce to terminate the employment of any hospital system employee or independent contractor, according to a copy of the terms included in NLRB’s June 18 complaint. 

By requiring the agreements, NLRB officials claimed, Mount Sinai is “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The health system’s “unfair labor practices” affects commerce as outlined under the law, according to the NLRB. The Act bans employers from burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.

Mount Sinai did not respond to requests for comment.

The NLRB’s complaint follows a landmark decision by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. In April 2024, the FTC voted to prohibit noncompetes indefinitely in an effort to protect workers.

“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”

Business groups and agencies have since sued to challenge against the ban, including the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber and other business groups argue that noncompete agreements are important for companies to protect trade secrets, shield recruiting investments, and hide confidential information. The lawsuits are ongoing. 
 

A Physician Blows the Whistle

An anonymous physician first alerted the NLRB to the contract language in November 2023. The doctor was required the sign the hospital system’s agreement for part-time physicians. The complaint does not say if the employee is still employed by the hospital system. 

To remedy the unfair labor practices alleged, the NLRB seeks an order requiring the health system to rescind the contract language, stop any actions against current or former employees to enforce the provisions, and make whole any employees who suffered financial losses related to the contract terms. 

The allegation against Mount Sinai is among a rising number of grievances filed with the NLRB that claim unfair labor practices. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2024, unfair labor practice charges filed across the NLRB’s field offices increased 7% — from 9612 in 2023 to 10,278 in 2024, according to a news release. 

NLRB, meanwhile has been cracking down on anticompetitive labor practices and confidentiality provisions that prevent employees from speaking out. 

In a February 2023 decision for instance, NLRB ruled that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by offering severance agreements to workers that include restrictive confidentiality and nondisparagement terms. In 2022, the NLRB and the Federal Trade Commission forged a partnership to more widely combat unfair, anticompetitive, and deceptive business practices. 

“Noncompete provisions reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a 2023 release. 

Ms. Abruzzo stressed in a memo that NLR Act is committed to an interagency approach to restrictions on the exercise of employee rights, “including limits to workers’ job mobility, information sharing, and referrals to other agencies.” 

Mount Sinai Health System must respond to the NLRB’s complaint by July 16, and an administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on September 24.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City is forcing part-time physicians to sign employment contracts that violate their labor rights, according to a June 2024 complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 

The complaint stems from no-poaching and confidentiality clauses in the agreements required as a condition of employment, NLRB officials alleged.

The contracts state that, for 1 year following termination, part-time physicians may not recruit, solicit, or induce to terminate the employment of any hospital system employee or independent contractor, according to a copy of the terms included in NLRB’s June 18 complaint. 

By requiring the agreements, NLRB officials claimed, Mount Sinai is “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The health system’s “unfair labor practices” affects commerce as outlined under the law, according to the NLRB. The Act bans employers from burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.

Mount Sinai did not respond to requests for comment.

The NLRB’s complaint follows a landmark decision by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. In April 2024, the FTC voted to prohibit noncompetes indefinitely in an effort to protect workers.

“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”

Business groups and agencies have since sued to challenge against the ban, including the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber and other business groups argue that noncompete agreements are important for companies to protect trade secrets, shield recruiting investments, and hide confidential information. The lawsuits are ongoing. 
 

A Physician Blows the Whistle

An anonymous physician first alerted the NLRB to the contract language in November 2023. The doctor was required the sign the hospital system’s agreement for part-time physicians. The complaint does not say if the employee is still employed by the hospital system. 

To remedy the unfair labor practices alleged, the NLRB seeks an order requiring the health system to rescind the contract language, stop any actions against current or former employees to enforce the provisions, and make whole any employees who suffered financial losses related to the contract terms. 

The allegation against Mount Sinai is among a rising number of grievances filed with the NLRB that claim unfair labor practices. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2024, unfair labor practice charges filed across the NLRB’s field offices increased 7% — from 9612 in 2023 to 10,278 in 2024, according to a news release. 

NLRB, meanwhile has been cracking down on anticompetitive labor practices and confidentiality provisions that prevent employees from speaking out. 

In a February 2023 decision for instance, NLRB ruled that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by offering severance agreements to workers that include restrictive confidentiality and nondisparagement terms. In 2022, the NLRB and the Federal Trade Commission forged a partnership to more widely combat unfair, anticompetitive, and deceptive business practices. 

“Noncompete provisions reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a 2023 release. 

Ms. Abruzzo stressed in a memo that NLR Act is committed to an interagency approach to restrictions on the exercise of employee rights, “including limits to workers’ job mobility, information sharing, and referrals to other agencies.” 

Mount Sinai Health System must respond to the NLRB’s complaint by July 16, and an administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on September 24.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with atrial fibrillation who discontinued anticoagulation (OAC) therapy after an ischemic stroke faced double the risk of a recurrent stroke within 1 year compared with counterparts who didn’t stop the drugs, a new Danish nationwide cohort study finds.

Among 8,119 patients aged 50 years and older (54.1% male, mean age 78.4), 4.3% had a recurrent stroke within 1 year following discharge for the initial stroke, reported David Gaist, PhD, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and colleagues in JAMA Neurology.

An adjusted analysis found that those who stopped therapy were more than twice as likely to experience another stroke over a mean 2.9 years (13.4% vs 6.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-2.89).

The findings highlight the preventive power of OAC therapy, Dr. Gaist said in an interview, and point to the importance of counseling patients about the benefits of the drugs. “Clinicians can provide balanced information on the pros and cons of discontinuing oral anticoagulants as well as lay out plans on when to restart the medication,” he said.

The researchers launched the study “to provide data on how often recurrent ischemic strokes occur in a large, unselected cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation who had a stroke and started or restarted oral anticoagulants, a situation mirroring what we see in our everyday lives as clinicians,” Dr. Gaist said. “We also wanted to see if patients with breakthrough strokes had particular characteristics compared with patients who did not have a recurrent stroke. Finally, we wanted to quantify a very simple cause of breakthrough stroke by answering the following question: How many of these patients had stopped taking their oral anticoagulant?”
 

A Large, Unselected Patient Cohort

Dr. Gaist and colleagues tracked 8,119 patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation who started or restarted OAC therapy within 30 days following their discharge between 2014 and 2021. Patients either had atrial fibrillation before their stroke or developed it afterward.

Eighty-one percent of patients had hypertension, 19.7% had diabetes, and 27.3% had ischemic heart disease; 35.3% had never smoked and smoking information was missing for 15.9%. Race/ethnicity information was not provided.

Patients were followed for an average of 2.9 years until 2022, and all were alive at least 30 days after discharge. During that time, 663 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke (4.3%), of whom 80.4% were on OAC therapy. The percentage who had stroke at 2 years rose to 6.5%.

While the researchers thought the number of strokes was high, Dr. Gaist said, this isn’t a sign that the drugs aren’t working. “Oral anticoagulant use in secondary prevention in atrial fibrillation is guideline-supported as it has been proven to reduce the risk of stroke by roughly two thirds.”

Of study participants at baseline, 37.9% took oral anticoagulants, 23.5% took direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and 15.1% took vitamin K antagonists. In a nested case-control analysis of 663 cases (58.7% men, mean age 80.1) matched to 2,652 controls, at admission for ischemic stroke, 80.4% were on OAC therapy, and 8%-11% of patients stopped OAC therapy after their strokes, the researchers reported.

Patients who stopped OAC therapy had more severe strokes than those who didn’t at 7 days (median recurrent ischemic stroke Scandinavian Stroke Scale [SSS] score = 40.0 vs 46.0, respectively; aOR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.31-3.36). Those who stopped OAC therapy also had higher mortality rates at 7 days (11.2% vs 3.9%, respectively) and 30 days (28.1% vs 10.9%, respectively).

It’s not clear why some patients discontinued OAC therapy. “We looked for evidence of serious bleeding or surgical procedures around the time of anticoagulant discontinuation but found this only to be the case in roughly 10% of these patients,” Dr. Gaist said.

He added that the study probably “underestimates the issue of anticoagulant discontinuation, particularly for DOACs, where a shorter half-life compared with warfarin means that even a short drug-break of a few days puts the patient at increased risk of stroke.”

The authors noted study limitations, including the lack of data on actual medication usage, alcohol usage, stroke etiology, lesion location, and socioeconomic status. And, they wrote, the study population is mostly of European origin.
 

No Surprises

Steven R. Messe, MD, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who didn’t take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, said in an interview that the study is a “well-done analysis.”

The findings are not surprising, he said. “The overall risk of stroke recurrence was 4.3% at 1 year while the mortality rate was higher at 15.4%. Given that the median CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4 and the average age was 79, the stroke recurrence rate and mortality rate are in line with prior studies.”

In regard to the power of OAC therapy to prevent recurrent strokes, Dr. Messe noted that patients may not be adhering to prescribed regimens. Also, “while DOACs are clearly safer that vitamin K–dependent anticoagulants, the medications are generally not dose adjusted. It is possible that adjusting the dose based on measured anti-Xa levels to insure therapeutic anticoagulant effects may reduce the stroke risk further.”

He added that “most of these patients with prior stroke and atrial fibrillation are vasculopathic and at risk of additional strokes due to other mechanisms such as small vessel or large vessel disease.”

In the big picture, the study “confirms again that anticoagulation should be prescribed to all patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke, unless there is a strong bleeding risk contraindication,” Dr. Messe said. These patients are clearly at high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality, and all risk factors should be aggressively managed.”

Researchers are exploring other options, he said. “For example, there are studies of factor XI inhibitors that could be added to a DOAC for additional reductions in ischemic stroke. In addition, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the randomized trial LAOS III demonstrated that surgical left atrial occlusion in addition to anticoagulation may provide additional stroke prevention.”

Dr. Gaist disclosed personal fees from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from Bayer. Several other authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Messe has no disclosures.
 

Patients with atrial fibrillation who discontinued anticoagulation (OAC) therapy after an ischemic stroke faced double the risk of a recurrent stroke within 1 year compared with counterparts who didn’t stop the drugs, a new Danish nationwide cohort study finds.

Among 8,119 patients aged 50 years and older (54.1% male, mean age 78.4), 4.3% had a recurrent stroke within 1 year following discharge for the initial stroke, reported David Gaist, PhD, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and colleagues in JAMA Neurology.

An adjusted analysis found that those who stopped therapy were more than twice as likely to experience another stroke over a mean 2.9 years (13.4% vs 6.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-2.89).

The findings highlight the preventive power of OAC therapy, Dr. Gaist said in an interview, and point to the importance of counseling patients about the benefits of the drugs. “Clinicians can provide balanced information on the pros and cons of discontinuing oral anticoagulants as well as lay out plans on when to restart the medication,” he said.

The researchers launched the study “to provide data on how often recurrent ischemic strokes occur in a large, unselected cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation who had a stroke and started or restarted oral anticoagulants, a situation mirroring what we see in our everyday lives as clinicians,” Dr. Gaist said. “We also wanted to see if patients with breakthrough strokes had particular characteristics compared with patients who did not have a recurrent stroke. Finally, we wanted to quantify a very simple cause of breakthrough stroke by answering the following question: How many of these patients had stopped taking their oral anticoagulant?”
 

A Large, Unselected Patient Cohort

Dr. Gaist and colleagues tracked 8,119 patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation who started or restarted OAC therapy within 30 days following their discharge between 2014 and 2021. Patients either had atrial fibrillation before their stroke or developed it afterward.

Eighty-one percent of patients had hypertension, 19.7% had diabetes, and 27.3% had ischemic heart disease; 35.3% had never smoked and smoking information was missing for 15.9%. Race/ethnicity information was not provided.

Patients were followed for an average of 2.9 years until 2022, and all were alive at least 30 days after discharge. During that time, 663 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke (4.3%), of whom 80.4% were on OAC therapy. The percentage who had stroke at 2 years rose to 6.5%.

While the researchers thought the number of strokes was high, Dr. Gaist said, this isn’t a sign that the drugs aren’t working. “Oral anticoagulant use in secondary prevention in atrial fibrillation is guideline-supported as it has been proven to reduce the risk of stroke by roughly two thirds.”

Of study participants at baseline, 37.9% took oral anticoagulants, 23.5% took direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and 15.1% took vitamin K antagonists. In a nested case-control analysis of 663 cases (58.7% men, mean age 80.1) matched to 2,652 controls, at admission for ischemic stroke, 80.4% were on OAC therapy, and 8%-11% of patients stopped OAC therapy after their strokes, the researchers reported.

Patients who stopped OAC therapy had more severe strokes than those who didn’t at 7 days (median recurrent ischemic stroke Scandinavian Stroke Scale [SSS] score = 40.0 vs 46.0, respectively; aOR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.31-3.36). Those who stopped OAC therapy also had higher mortality rates at 7 days (11.2% vs 3.9%, respectively) and 30 days (28.1% vs 10.9%, respectively).

It’s not clear why some patients discontinued OAC therapy. “We looked for evidence of serious bleeding or surgical procedures around the time of anticoagulant discontinuation but found this only to be the case in roughly 10% of these patients,” Dr. Gaist said.

He added that the study probably “underestimates the issue of anticoagulant discontinuation, particularly for DOACs, where a shorter half-life compared with warfarin means that even a short drug-break of a few days puts the patient at increased risk of stroke.”

The authors noted study limitations, including the lack of data on actual medication usage, alcohol usage, stroke etiology, lesion location, and socioeconomic status. And, they wrote, the study population is mostly of European origin.
 

No Surprises

Steven R. Messe, MD, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who didn’t take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, said in an interview that the study is a “well-done analysis.”

The findings are not surprising, he said. “The overall risk of stroke recurrence was 4.3% at 1 year while the mortality rate was higher at 15.4%. Given that the median CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4 and the average age was 79, the stroke recurrence rate and mortality rate are in line with prior studies.”

In regard to the power of OAC therapy to prevent recurrent strokes, Dr. Messe noted that patients may not be adhering to prescribed regimens. Also, “while DOACs are clearly safer that vitamin K–dependent anticoagulants, the medications are generally not dose adjusted. It is possible that adjusting the dose based on measured anti-Xa levels to insure therapeutic anticoagulant effects may reduce the stroke risk further.”

He added that “most of these patients with prior stroke and atrial fibrillation are vasculopathic and at risk of additional strokes due to other mechanisms such as small vessel or large vessel disease.”

In the big picture, the study “confirms again that anticoagulation should be prescribed to all patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke, unless there is a strong bleeding risk contraindication,” Dr. Messe said. These patients are clearly at high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality, and all risk factors should be aggressively managed.”

Researchers are exploring other options, he said. “For example, there are studies of factor XI inhibitors that could be added to a DOAC for additional reductions in ischemic stroke. In addition, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the randomized trial LAOS III demonstrated that surgical left atrial occlusion in addition to anticoagulation may provide additional stroke prevention.”

Dr. Gaist disclosed personal fees from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from Bayer. Several other authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Messe has no disclosures.
 

Patients with atrial fibrillation who discontinued anticoagulation (OAC) therapy after an ischemic stroke faced double the risk of a recurrent stroke within 1 year compared with counterparts who didn’t stop the drugs, a new Danish nationwide cohort study finds.

Among 8,119 patients aged 50 years and older (54.1% male, mean age 78.4), 4.3% had a recurrent stroke within 1 year following discharge for the initial stroke, reported David Gaist, PhD, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and colleagues in JAMA Neurology.

An adjusted analysis found that those who stopped therapy were more than twice as likely to experience another stroke over a mean 2.9 years (13.4% vs 6.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-2.89).

The findings highlight the preventive power of OAC therapy, Dr. Gaist said in an interview, and point to the importance of counseling patients about the benefits of the drugs. “Clinicians can provide balanced information on the pros and cons of discontinuing oral anticoagulants as well as lay out plans on when to restart the medication,” he said.

The researchers launched the study “to provide data on how often recurrent ischemic strokes occur in a large, unselected cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation who had a stroke and started or restarted oral anticoagulants, a situation mirroring what we see in our everyday lives as clinicians,” Dr. Gaist said. “We also wanted to see if patients with breakthrough strokes had particular characteristics compared with patients who did not have a recurrent stroke. Finally, we wanted to quantify a very simple cause of breakthrough stroke by answering the following question: How many of these patients had stopped taking their oral anticoagulant?”
 

A Large, Unselected Patient Cohort

Dr. Gaist and colleagues tracked 8,119 patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation who started or restarted OAC therapy within 30 days following their discharge between 2014 and 2021. Patients either had atrial fibrillation before their stroke or developed it afterward.

Eighty-one percent of patients had hypertension, 19.7% had diabetes, and 27.3% had ischemic heart disease; 35.3% had never smoked and smoking information was missing for 15.9%. Race/ethnicity information was not provided.

Patients were followed for an average of 2.9 years until 2022, and all were alive at least 30 days after discharge. During that time, 663 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke (4.3%), of whom 80.4% were on OAC therapy. The percentage who had stroke at 2 years rose to 6.5%.

While the researchers thought the number of strokes was high, Dr. Gaist said, this isn’t a sign that the drugs aren’t working. “Oral anticoagulant use in secondary prevention in atrial fibrillation is guideline-supported as it has been proven to reduce the risk of stroke by roughly two thirds.”

Of study participants at baseline, 37.9% took oral anticoagulants, 23.5% took direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and 15.1% took vitamin K antagonists. In a nested case-control analysis of 663 cases (58.7% men, mean age 80.1) matched to 2,652 controls, at admission for ischemic stroke, 80.4% were on OAC therapy, and 8%-11% of patients stopped OAC therapy after their strokes, the researchers reported.

Patients who stopped OAC therapy had more severe strokes than those who didn’t at 7 days (median recurrent ischemic stroke Scandinavian Stroke Scale [SSS] score = 40.0 vs 46.0, respectively; aOR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.31-3.36). Those who stopped OAC therapy also had higher mortality rates at 7 days (11.2% vs 3.9%, respectively) and 30 days (28.1% vs 10.9%, respectively).

It’s not clear why some patients discontinued OAC therapy. “We looked for evidence of serious bleeding or surgical procedures around the time of anticoagulant discontinuation but found this only to be the case in roughly 10% of these patients,” Dr. Gaist said.

He added that the study probably “underestimates the issue of anticoagulant discontinuation, particularly for DOACs, where a shorter half-life compared with warfarin means that even a short drug-break of a few days puts the patient at increased risk of stroke.”

The authors noted study limitations, including the lack of data on actual medication usage, alcohol usage, stroke etiology, lesion location, and socioeconomic status. And, they wrote, the study population is mostly of European origin.
 

No Surprises

Steven R. Messe, MD, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who didn’t take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, said in an interview that the study is a “well-done analysis.”

The findings are not surprising, he said. “The overall risk of stroke recurrence was 4.3% at 1 year while the mortality rate was higher at 15.4%. Given that the median CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4 and the average age was 79, the stroke recurrence rate and mortality rate are in line with prior studies.”

In regard to the power of OAC therapy to prevent recurrent strokes, Dr. Messe noted that patients may not be adhering to prescribed regimens. Also, “while DOACs are clearly safer that vitamin K–dependent anticoagulants, the medications are generally not dose adjusted. It is possible that adjusting the dose based on measured anti-Xa levels to insure therapeutic anticoagulant effects may reduce the stroke risk further.”

He added that “most of these patients with prior stroke and atrial fibrillation are vasculopathic and at risk of additional strokes due to other mechanisms such as small vessel or large vessel disease.”

In the big picture, the study “confirms again that anticoagulation should be prescribed to all patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke, unless there is a strong bleeding risk contraindication,” Dr. Messe said. These patients are clearly at high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality, and all risk factors should be aggressively managed.”

Researchers are exploring other options, he said. “For example, there are studies of factor XI inhibitors that could be added to a DOAC for additional reductions in ischemic stroke. In addition, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the randomized trial LAOS III demonstrated that surgical left atrial occlusion in addition to anticoagulation may provide additional stroke prevention.”

Dr. Gaist disclosed personal fees from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from Bayer. Several other authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Messe has no disclosures.
 

TOPLINE:

Compared with the general population, patients with urticaria had a 49% higher risk of developing cancer in the first year following diagnosis, which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
• They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
• Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
• This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
• Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
• After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
• The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with the general population, patients with urticaria had a 49% higher risk of developing cancer in the first year following diagnosis, which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
• They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
• Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
• This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
• Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
• After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
• The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with the general population, patients with urticaria had a 49% higher risk of developing cancer in the first year following diagnosis, which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
• They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
• Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
• This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
• Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
• After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
• The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On any given day, oncologist Mark Lewis, MD, feels like he’s seesawing between two eras of technology. 

One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine. 

“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”

Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers. 

According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found. 

Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained. 

“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.” 

If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.

Or is it?

Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently. 

“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”

And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised. 

Slower Workflows, Care Concerns

Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum. 

Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices. 

“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.” 

Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said. 

Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.

“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.

“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”

Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened. 

As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added. 

“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.” 

Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients. 

Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend. 

“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said. 

Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said. 

“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”

Broader Health Policy Impacts

The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say. 

Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.

Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.

Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always. 

“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said. 

Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said. 

“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”

But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”

Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said. 

Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.

“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’” 

Slow, but Steady, Improvements

Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.

According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data. 

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.

Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape. 

Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care. 

EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said. 

“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”

Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology. 

But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.” 

“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On any given day, oncologist Mark Lewis, MD, feels like he’s seesawing between two eras of technology. 

One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine. 

“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”

Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers. 

According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found. 

Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained. 

“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.” 

If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.

Or is it?

Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently. 

“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”

And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised. 

Slower Workflows, Care Concerns

Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum. 

Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices. 

“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.” 

Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said. 

Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.

“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.

“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”

Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened. 

As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added. 

“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.” 

Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients. 

Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend. 

“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said. 

Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said. 

“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”

Broader Health Policy Impacts

The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say. 

Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.

Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.

Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always. 

“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said. 

Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said. 

“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”

But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”

Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said. 

Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.

“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’” 

Slow, but Steady, Improvements

Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.

According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data. 

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.

Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape. 

Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care. 

EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said. 

“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”

Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology. 

But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.” 

“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On any given day, oncologist Mark Lewis, MD, feels like he’s seesawing between two eras of technology. 

One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine. 

“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”

Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers. 

According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found. 

Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained. 

“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.” 

If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.

Or is it?

Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently. 

“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”

And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised. 

Slower Workflows, Care Concerns

Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum. 

Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices. 

“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.” 

Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said. 

Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.

“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.

“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”

Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened. 

As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added. 

“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.” 

Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients. 

Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend. 

“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said. 

Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said. 

“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”

Broader Health Policy Impacts

The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say. 

Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.

Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.

Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always. 

“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said. 

Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said. 

“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”

But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”

Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said. 

Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.

“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’” 

Slow, but Steady, Improvements

Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.

According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data. 

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.

Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape. 

Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care. 

EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said. 

“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”

Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology. 

But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.” 

“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the latest survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that numerous critical systemic anticancer therapies, primarily generic drugs, are currently in shortage.

Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.

“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.

The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.

“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.

However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.

“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.

In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.

Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).

In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.

In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.

Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.

How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?

Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.

“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.

Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.

The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.

“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the latest survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that numerous critical systemic anticancer therapies, primarily generic drugs, are currently in shortage.

Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.

“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.

The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.

“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.

However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.

“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.

In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.

Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).

In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.

In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.

Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.

How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?

Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.

“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.

Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.

The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.

“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the latest survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that numerous critical systemic anticancer therapies, primarily generic drugs, are currently in shortage.

Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.

“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.

The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.

“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.

However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.

“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.

In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.

Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).

In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.

In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.

Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.

How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?

Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.

“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.

Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.

The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.

“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.