It has been 19 years since the publication of the landmark AFFIRM trial.¹ At the time of publication, a “rhythm control” strategy was the preferred therapy, with a rate control approach an accepted alternative. AFFIRM showed no mortality benefit of rhythm control over rate control, and its result dramatically shifted the paradigm of atrial fibrillation (AF) management. However, the high crossover rate between treatment arms may have biased the study toward the null hypothesis. Post hoc analyses of AFFIRM and other observational studies indicate that sinus rhythm was associated with a lower risk of death.² Since AFFIRM, technical advances and procedural experience have improved the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation (CA), and recently published randomized trials have shown improved outcomes with rhythm control. This Progress Note summarizes the recent evidence, updating hospitalists on the management of AF, including inpatient cardioversion, patient selection for CA, use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), and lifestyle modifications associated with maintenance of sinus rhythm.

A PubMed search for recent publications using combined the MeSH terms “atrial fibrillation” with “catheter ablation,” “antiarrhythmic drugs,” and “lifestyle modifications.” Our review filtered for randomized trials, guidelines, and selected reviews. 

Urgent cardioversion is recommended for those with hemodynamic instability, AF associated ischemia, or acute heart failure.³ Whether to perform elective cardioversion depends on AF duration, symptoms, and the initial evaluation for structural heart disease or reversible causes of AF. Evaluation for new-onset AF includes eliciting a history of AF-associated comorbidities (hypertension, alcohol use, obstructive sleep apnea) and an echocardiogram and thyroid, renal, and liver function tests.³ Stable patients with AF precipitated by high-catecholamine states (eg, postoperative AF, sepsis, hyperthyroidism, pulmonary embolism, substance use) require management of the underlying condition before considering rhythm control. Inpatient electrical or pharmacologic cardioversion may be considered for patients with stable, new-onset AF sufficiently symptomatic to require hospitalization. Pre-procedure anticoagulation and a transesophageal echocardiogram to rule out left atrial thrombus before cardioversion is preferred for a first episode of AF suspected of lasting longer than 48 hours but requires anesthesia and considerable resources. In resource-constrained settings, patients asymptomatic once rate controlled may be safely discharged with a referral for outpatient cardioversion.

For patients with structural heart disease (left atrial dilation), previously failed cardioversion, or recurrent AF, initiating AADs (eg, ibutilide, amiodarone) before electrical cardioversion can improve the success rate of cardioversion.³ Ibutilide infusion requires cardiology consultation and postinfusion hemodynamic and QTc monitoring. Defer immediate cardioversion among stable patients unable to continue a minimum of 4 weeks of anticoagulation or with comorbidities for which risks of cardioversion outweigh benefits.

Successful maintenance of sinus rhythm is associated with reduced symptom burden and improved quality of life and is recommended for patients with persistent symptoms, failure of rate control, younger age, first episode of AF, or patient preference for rhythm control.³ Since AF progression results in irreversible cardiac remodeling, earlier rhythm control may prevent further atrial remodeling and atrial myopathy.

The EAST-AFNET 4 trial evaluated a rhythm-control strategy in patients with AF duration <12 months and who met two of the following: age > 65 years, female sex, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease.⁴ Maintenance of sinus rhythm was associated with a lower composite outcome of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and death from cardiovascular causes over 5 years compared to rate control (3.9/100 person-years vs 5.0/100 person-years, P = .005). Interestingly, roughly 20% of patients underwent CA and the remainder received AADs. The large proportion of patients treated with AADs raises the question of why the results differed from AFFIRM. There are four primary differences between these trials to consider. First, EAST-AFNET 4 used an early rhythm-control strategy (<12 months). Second, nearly all patients in EAST-AFNET 4 continued guideline-recommend anticoagulation compared to 70% receiving rhythm control in AFFIRM. Third, in AFFIRM, 62.8% of patients received amiodarone, which has significant long-term adverse effects compared to 11.8% by the end of EAST-AFNET 4. Finally, increased use of CA in EAST-AFNET 4 may have contributed to the success of rhythm control. In patients with cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors, a rhythm-control strategy will be best if implemented early (<12 months), before the development of long-standing persistent AF, and if clinicians adhere to anticoagulation recommendations.

Antiarrhythmic Drugs

Antiarrhythmic drug use prior to CA remains the cornerstone of a rhythm-control strategy for patients meeting EAST-AFNET 4 trial criteria or patient preference for medical management. Hospitalists’ knowledge of key differences between AADs used in EAST-AFNET 4 and AFFIRM as well as American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) guideline recommendations help avoid harmful AAD prescribing. Notably, 21.9% of patients in AFFIRM received AADs no longer recommended to maintain sinus rhythm in the AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines (quinidine, disopyramide, procainamide, moricizine).³ For patients without structural heart disease, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, or dronedarone are preferred. Dronedarone and sotalol remain an option for those with coronary artery disease. For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), amiodarone and dofetilide are preferred (Table).³

Catheter Ablation

The AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines offer a Ia recommendation for CA in patients with recurrent, symptomatic AF who failed AAD therapy. Initial CA is a IIa recommendation and is increasingly common for patients with paroxysmal AF who prefer this strategy to long-term AAD use.³ Recent trials evaluated CA as a primary treatment modality in patients with heart failure and as initial management before AADs.

Initial Catheter Ablation

The CABANA trial compared CA with AADs as an initial approach for maintaining sinus rhythm.⁵ In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in all death or disabling stroke between AAD therapy and CA at 5-year follow-up. The results are limited by a 27.5% crossover rate from drug therapy to CA. The per-protocol analysis based on the treatment received favored CA for the primary composite outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest at 12 months. The STOP-AF and EARLY-AF trials found that initial CA was more successful in maintaining freedom from atrial arrhythmias (74.6% vs 45.0%, P < .001)⁶ and fewer symptomatic atrial arrhythmias among patients with paroxysmal AF compared to AADs, without significant CA-associated adverse events.^6,7

While hospitalists should interpret the per-protocol analysis cautiously when determining the clinical benefit, these trials indicate initial CA is as safe as AADs and improves freedom from AF. Duration of AF, knowledge of periprocedural anticoagulation recommendations, and CA procedural complications are important when recommending CA (Figure). Efficacy of CA is approximately 70% in paroxysmal AF and decreases for persistent and long-standing AF.⁶ Complications of CA include venous access site hematoma, cardiac tamponade, phrenic nerve injury, pulmonary vein stenosis, atrial-esophageal fistula, left atrial flutter, and stroke due to endothelial injury and intraprocedural thrombosis.³ Therapeutic anticoagulation is required before CA and for at least 2 months post ablation regardless of the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.³

Catheter Ablation Plus Antiarrhythmics

Ongoing AADs following CA may suppress AF triggers, especially in patients with persistent AF or high-risk for recurrence post ablation (left atrial dilation). The AMIO-CAT trial found that 4 weeks of amiodarone after ablation reduced early AF recurrence at 3 months (34% vs 53%, P = .006), arrhythmia-related hospitalizations, and need for cardioversion in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF.⁸ However, amiodarone did not reduce recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias at 6 months. The POWDER-AF trial evaluated AAD use for 1 year after CA in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF.⁹ Continuation of class IC (eg, flecainide) and III (eg, amiodarone) AADs resulted in a near 20% absolute risk reduction in recurrent atrial arrhythmias and reduced the need for repeat CA. These trials suggest that discharging patients on adjunctive AADs decreases early recurrence of AF and arrhythmia-related hospitalizations; however, studies evaluating additional clinical outcomes are needed.

Heart Failure

The AATAC trial found CA was superior to amiodarone therapy at maintaining freedom from AF and reducing unplanned hospitalizations and mortality among patients with persistent AF and HFrEF.¹⁰ The larger CASTLE-AF trial randomized patients with an ejection fraction below 35% and NYHA class II or greater symptoms with symptomatic paroxysmal AF or persistent AF in whom AAD therapy failed to CA or medical therapy.¹¹ The CA group experienced lower cardiovascular mortality (11.2% vs 22.3%, P = .009) and fewer heart failure hospitalizations (20.7% vs 35.9%, P = .004). The subsequent AMICA trial did not find a benefit of CA in patients with HFrEF and persistent or long-standing persistent AF; however, this trial was limited to 12 months, whereas the benefit of CA in CASTLE-AF was observed after 12 months.¹² Also, AMICA enrolled patients with higher NYHA class. Therefore, hospitalists should refer AF patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and NYHA II or III symptoms for CA. Comparing AMICA and CASTLE-AF suggests earlier referral for CA, prior to the development of worsening heart failure symptoms, may improve outcomes.

Data for patients with heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF) is limited. One small trial showed reduced heart failure hospitalizations in HFpEF patients treated with CA compared to AADs or beta-blockers.¹³ It is reasonable to refer HFpEF patients with persisting symptoms or reduced quality of life for CA.

The AHA Scientific Statement on Lifestyle and Risk Factor Modification for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation delineates risk factors that increase the incidence of AF, including alcohol consumption, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, and obesity.¹⁴ Among regular alcohol consumers with paroxysmal or persistent AF managed with a rhythm-control strategy, cessation of alcohol has been shown to significantly lower the incidence of recurrent AF (53.0% vs 73.0%, P = .005), and lead to a longer time until recurrence of AF compared to patients regularly consuming alcohol.¹⁵ Among patients with obstructive sleep apnea, a systematic review of nonrandomized studies showed continuous positive airway pressure is associated with maintenance of sinus rhythm.¹⁴ Control of these risk factors is associated with up to approximately 40% of patients maintaining sinus rhythm without intervention, and hospitalists should encourage lifestyle modification to maximize the probability of maintaining sinus rhythm. 

Hospitalists frequently determine the best initial management strategy for patients admitted with new-onset AF, and recent literature may shift more patients towards management with rhythm control. Based on the trials reviewed in this Progress Note, hospitalists should recommend a rhythm-control strategy for patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal, or persistent AF of <12 months’ duration and refer patients with HFrEF for CA. Adherence to guideline recommendations is essential when prescribing AADs to avoid adverse drug events. It is vital to ensure patients managed with a rhythm-control strategy receive anticoagulation for 4 weeks post cardioversion or 2 months post CA with long-term anticoagulation based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. Finally, admissions for AF should serve as a catalyst to communicate to patients the importance of addressing obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, and alcohol use disorders. Applying these evidence-based practices will enable hospitalists to make clinical decisions that improve symptom burden and survival for patients with AF.

It has been 19 years since the publication of the landmark AFFIRM trial.¹ At the time of publication, a “rhythm control” strategy was the preferred therapy, with a rate control approach an accepted alternative. AFFIRM showed no mortality benefit of rhythm control over rate control, and its result dramatically shifted the paradigm of atrial fibrillation (AF) management. However, the high crossover rate between treatment arms may have biased the study toward the null hypothesis. Post hoc analyses of AFFIRM and other observational studies indicate that sinus rhythm was associated with a lower risk of death.² Since AFFIRM, technical advances and procedural experience have improved the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation (CA), and recently published randomized trials have shown improved outcomes with rhythm control. This Progress Note summarizes the recent evidence, updating hospitalists on the management of AF, including inpatient cardioversion, patient selection for CA, use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), and lifestyle modifications associated with maintenance of sinus rhythm.

A PubMed search for recent publications using combined the MeSH terms “atrial fibrillation” with “catheter ablation,” “antiarrhythmic drugs,” and “lifestyle modifications.” Our review filtered for randomized trials, guidelines, and selected reviews. 

Urgent cardioversion is recommended for those with hemodynamic instability, AF associated ischemia, or acute heart failure.³ Whether to perform elective cardioversion depends on AF duration, symptoms, and the initial evaluation for structural heart disease or reversible causes of AF. Evaluation for new-onset AF includes eliciting a history of AF-associated comorbidities (hypertension, alcohol use, obstructive sleep apnea) and an echocardiogram and thyroid, renal, and liver function tests.³ Stable patients with AF precipitated by high-catecholamine states (eg, postoperative AF, sepsis, hyperthyroidism, pulmonary embolism, substance use) require management of the underlying condition before considering rhythm control. Inpatient electrical or pharmacologic cardioversion may be considered for patients with stable, new-onset AF sufficiently symptomatic to require hospitalization. Pre-procedure anticoagulation and a transesophageal echocardiogram to rule out left atrial thrombus before cardioversion is preferred for a first episode of AF suspected of lasting longer than 48 hours but requires anesthesia and considerable resources. In resource-constrained settings, patients asymptomatic once rate controlled may be safely discharged with a referral for outpatient cardioversion.

For patients with structural heart disease (left atrial dilation), previously failed cardioversion, or recurrent AF, initiating AADs (eg, ibutilide, amiodarone) before electrical cardioversion can improve the success rate of cardioversion.³ Ibutilide infusion requires cardiology consultation and postinfusion hemodynamic and QTc monitoring. Defer immediate cardioversion among stable patients unable to continue a minimum of 4 weeks of anticoagulation or with comorbidities for which risks of cardioversion outweigh benefits.

Successful maintenance of sinus rhythm is associated with reduced symptom burden and improved quality of life and is recommended for patients with persistent symptoms, failure of rate control, younger age, first episode of AF, or patient preference for rhythm control.³ Since AF progression results in irreversible cardiac remodeling, earlier rhythm control may prevent further atrial remodeling and atrial myopathy.

The EAST-AFNET 4 trial evaluated a rhythm-control strategy in patients with AF duration <12 months and who met two of the following: age > 65 years, female sex, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease.⁴ Maintenance of sinus rhythm was associated with a lower composite outcome of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and death from cardiovascular causes over 5 years compared to rate control (3.9/100 person-years vs 5.0/100 person-years, P = .005). Interestingly, roughly 20% of patients underwent CA and the remainder received AADs. The large proportion of patients treated with AADs raises the question of why the results differed from AFFIRM. There are four primary differences between these trials to consider. First, EAST-AFNET 4 used an early rhythm-control strategy (<12 months). Second, nearly all patients in EAST-AFNET 4 continued guideline-recommend anticoagulation compared to 70% receiving rhythm control in AFFIRM. Third, in AFFIRM, 62.8% of patients received amiodarone, which has significant long-term adverse effects compared to 11.8% by the end of EAST-AFNET 4. Finally, increased use of CA in EAST-AFNET 4 may have contributed to the success of rhythm control. In patients with cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors, a rhythm-control strategy will be best if implemented early (<12 months), before the development of long-standing persistent AF, and if clinicians adhere to anticoagulation recommendations.

Antiarrhythmic Drugs

Antiarrhythmic drug use prior to CA remains the cornerstone of a rhythm-control strategy for patients meeting EAST-AFNET 4 trial criteria or patient preference for medical management. Hospitalists’ knowledge of key differences between AADs used in EAST-AFNET 4 and AFFIRM as well as American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) guideline recommendations help avoid harmful AAD prescribing. Notably, 21.9% of patients in AFFIRM received AADs no longer recommended to maintain sinus rhythm in the AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines (quinidine, disopyramide, procainamide, moricizine).³ For patients without structural heart disease, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, or dronedarone are preferred. Dronedarone and sotalol remain an option for those with coronary artery disease. For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), amiodarone and dofetilide are preferred (Table).³

Catheter Ablation

The AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines offer a Ia recommendation for CA in patients with recurrent, symptomatic AF who failed AAD therapy. Initial CA is a IIa recommendation and is increasingly common for patients with paroxysmal AF who prefer this strategy to long-term AAD use.³ Recent trials evaluated CA as a primary treatment modality in patients with heart failure and as initial management before AADs.

Initial Catheter Ablation

The CABANA trial compared CA with AADs as an initial approach for maintaining sinus rhythm.⁵ In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in all death or disabling stroke between AAD therapy and CA at 5-year follow-up. The results are limited by a 27.5% crossover rate from drug therapy to CA. The per-protocol analysis based on the treatment received favored CA for the primary composite outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest at 12 months. The STOP-AF and EARLY-AF trials found that initial CA was more successful in maintaining freedom from atrial arrhythmias (74.6% vs 45.0%, P < .001)⁶ and fewer symptomatic atrial arrhythmias among patients with paroxysmal AF compared to AADs, without significant CA-associated adverse events.^6,7

While hospitalists should interpret the per-protocol analysis cautiously when determining the clinical benefit, these trials indicate initial CA is as safe as AADs and improves freedom from AF. Duration of AF, knowledge of periprocedural anticoagulation recommendations, and CA procedural complications are important when recommending CA (Figure). Efficacy of CA is approximately 70% in paroxysmal AF and decreases for persistent and long-standing AF.⁶ Complications of CA include venous access site hematoma, cardiac tamponade, phrenic nerve injury, pulmonary vein stenosis, atrial-esophageal fistula, left atrial flutter, and stroke due to endothelial injury and intraprocedural thrombosis.³ Therapeutic anticoagulation is required before CA and for at least 2 months post ablation regardless of the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.³

Catheter Ablation Plus Antiarrhythmics

Ongoing AADs following CA may suppress AF triggers, especially in patients with persistent AF or high-risk for recurrence post ablation (left atrial dilation). The AMIO-CAT trial found that 4 weeks of amiodarone after ablation reduced early AF recurrence at 3 months (34% vs 53%, P = .006), arrhythmia-related hospitalizations, and need for cardioversion in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF.⁸ However, amiodarone did not reduce recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias at 6 months. The POWDER-AF trial evaluated AAD use for 1 year after CA in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF.⁹ Continuation of class IC (eg, flecainide) and III (eg, amiodarone) AADs resulted in a near 20% absolute risk reduction in recurrent atrial arrhythmias and reduced the need for repeat CA. These trials suggest that discharging patients on adjunctive AADs decreases early recurrence of AF and arrhythmia-related hospitalizations; however, studies evaluating additional clinical outcomes are needed.

Heart Failure

The AATAC trial found CA was superior to amiodarone therapy at maintaining freedom from AF and reducing unplanned hospitalizations and mortality among patients with persistent AF and HFrEF.¹⁰ The larger CASTLE-AF trial randomized patients with an ejection fraction below 35% and NYHA class II or greater symptoms with symptomatic paroxysmal AF or persistent AF in whom AAD therapy failed to CA or medical therapy.¹¹ The CA group experienced lower cardiovascular mortality (11.2% vs 22.3%, P = .009) and fewer heart failure hospitalizations (20.7% vs 35.9%, P = .004). The subsequent AMICA trial did not find a benefit of CA in patients with HFrEF and persistent or long-standing persistent AF; however, this trial was limited to 12 months, whereas the benefit of CA in CASTLE-AF was observed after 12 months.¹² Also, AMICA enrolled patients with higher NYHA class. Therefore, hospitalists should refer AF patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and NYHA II or III symptoms for CA. Comparing AMICA and CASTLE-AF suggests earlier referral for CA, prior to the development of worsening heart failure symptoms, may improve outcomes.

Data for patients with heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF) is limited. One small trial showed reduced heart failure hospitalizations in HFpEF patients treated with CA compared to AADs or beta-blockers.¹³ It is reasonable to refer HFpEF patients with persisting symptoms or reduced quality of life for CA.

The AHA Scientific Statement on Lifestyle and Risk Factor Modification for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation delineates risk factors that increase the incidence of AF, including alcohol consumption, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, and obesity.¹⁴ Among regular alcohol consumers with paroxysmal or persistent AF managed with a rhythm-control strategy, cessation of alcohol has been shown to significantly lower the incidence of recurrent AF (53.0% vs 73.0%, P = .005), and lead to a longer time until recurrence of AF compared to patients regularly consuming alcohol.¹⁵ Among patients with obstructive sleep apnea, a systematic review of nonrandomized studies showed continuous positive airway pressure is associated with maintenance of sinus rhythm.¹⁴ Control of these risk factors is associated with up to approximately 40% of patients maintaining sinus rhythm without intervention, and hospitalists should encourage lifestyle modification to maximize the probability of maintaining sinus rhythm. 

Hospitalists frequently determine the best initial management strategy for patients admitted with new-onset AF, and recent literature may shift more patients towards management with rhythm control. Based on the trials reviewed in this Progress Note, hospitalists should recommend a rhythm-control strategy for patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal, or persistent AF of <12 months’ duration and refer patients with HFrEF for CA. Adherence to guideline recommendations is essential when prescribing AADs to avoid adverse drug events. It is vital to ensure patients managed with a rhythm-control strategy receive anticoagulation for 4 weeks post cardioversion or 2 months post CA with long-term anticoagulation based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. Finally, admissions for AF should serve as a catalyst to communicate to patients the importance of addressing obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, and alcohol use disorders. Applying these evidence-based practices will enable hospitalists to make clinical decisions that improve symptom burden and survival for patients with AF.

It has been 19 years since the publication of the landmark AFFIRM trial.¹ At the time of publication, a “rhythm control” strategy was the preferred therapy, with a rate control approach an accepted alternative. AFFIRM showed no mortality benefit of rhythm control over rate control, and its result dramatically shifted the paradigm of atrial fibrillation (AF) management. However, the high crossover rate between treatment arms may have biased the study toward the null hypothesis. Post hoc analyses of AFFIRM and other observational studies indicate that sinus rhythm was associated with a lower risk of death.² Since AFFIRM, technical advances and procedural experience have improved the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation (CA), and recently published randomized trials have shown improved outcomes with rhythm control. This Progress Note summarizes the recent evidence, updating hospitalists on the management of AF, including inpatient cardioversion, patient selection for CA, use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), and lifestyle modifications associated with maintenance of sinus rhythm.

A PubMed search for recent publications using combined the MeSH terms “atrial fibrillation” with “catheter ablation,” “antiarrhythmic drugs,” and “lifestyle modifications.” Our review filtered for randomized trials, guidelines, and selected reviews. 

Urgent cardioversion is recommended for those with hemodynamic instability, AF associated ischemia, or acute heart failure.³ Whether to perform elective cardioversion depends on AF duration, symptoms, and the initial evaluation for structural heart disease or reversible causes of AF. Evaluation for new-onset AF includes eliciting a history of AF-associated comorbidities (hypertension, alcohol use, obstructive sleep apnea) and an echocardiogram and thyroid, renal, and liver function tests.³ Stable patients with AF precipitated by high-catecholamine states (eg, postoperative AF, sepsis, hyperthyroidism, pulmonary embolism, substance use) require management of the underlying condition before considering rhythm control. Inpatient electrical or pharmacologic cardioversion may be considered for patients with stable, new-onset AF sufficiently symptomatic to require hospitalization. Pre-procedure anticoagulation and a transesophageal echocardiogram to rule out left atrial thrombus before cardioversion is preferred for a first episode of AF suspected of lasting longer than 48 hours but requires anesthesia and considerable resources. In resource-constrained settings, patients asymptomatic once rate controlled may be safely discharged with a referral for outpatient cardioversion.

For patients with structural heart disease (left atrial dilation), previously failed cardioversion, or recurrent AF, initiating AADs (eg, ibutilide, amiodarone) before electrical cardioversion can improve the success rate of cardioversion.³ Ibutilide infusion requires cardiology consultation and postinfusion hemodynamic and QTc monitoring. Defer immediate cardioversion among stable patients unable to continue a minimum of 4 weeks of anticoagulation or with comorbidities for which risks of cardioversion outweigh benefits.

Successful maintenance of sinus rhythm is associated with reduced symptom burden and improved quality of life and is recommended for patients with persistent symptoms, failure of rate control, younger age, first episode of AF, or patient preference for rhythm control.³ Since AF progression results in irreversible cardiac remodeling, earlier rhythm control may prevent further atrial remodeling and atrial myopathy.

The EAST-AFNET 4 trial evaluated a rhythm-control strategy in patients with AF duration <12 months and who met two of the following: age > 65 years, female sex, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease.⁴ Maintenance of sinus rhythm was associated with a lower composite outcome of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and death from cardiovascular causes over 5 years compared to rate control (3.9/100 person-years vs 5.0/100 person-years, P = .005). Interestingly, roughly 20% of patients underwent CA and the remainder received AADs. The large proportion of patients treated with AADs raises the question of why the results differed from AFFIRM. There are four primary differences between these trials to consider. First, EAST-AFNET 4 used an early rhythm-control strategy (<12 months). Second, nearly all patients in EAST-AFNET 4 continued guideline-recommend anticoagulation compared to 70% receiving rhythm control in AFFIRM. Third, in AFFIRM, 62.8% of patients received amiodarone, which has significant long-term adverse effects compared to 11.8% by the end of EAST-AFNET 4. Finally, increased use of CA in EAST-AFNET 4 may have contributed to the success of rhythm control. In patients with cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors, a rhythm-control strategy will be best if implemented early (<12 months), before the development of long-standing persistent AF, and if clinicians adhere to anticoagulation recommendations.

Antiarrhythmic Drugs

Antiarrhythmic drug use prior to CA remains the cornerstone of a rhythm-control strategy for patients meeting EAST-AFNET 4 trial criteria or patient preference for medical management. Hospitalists’ knowledge of key differences between AADs used in EAST-AFNET 4 and AFFIRM as well as American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) guideline recommendations help avoid harmful AAD prescribing. Notably, 21.9% of patients in AFFIRM received AADs no longer recommended to maintain sinus rhythm in the AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines (quinidine, disopyramide, procainamide, moricizine).³ For patients without structural heart disease, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, or dronedarone are preferred. Dronedarone and sotalol remain an option for those with coronary artery disease. For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), amiodarone and dofetilide are preferred (Table).³

Catheter Ablation

The AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines offer a Ia recommendation for CA in patients with recurrent, symptomatic AF who failed AAD therapy. Initial CA is a IIa recommendation and is increasingly common for patients with paroxysmal AF who prefer this strategy to long-term AAD use.³ Recent trials evaluated CA as a primary treatment modality in patients with heart failure and as initial management before AADs.

Initial Catheter Ablation

The CABANA trial compared CA with AADs as an initial approach for maintaining sinus rhythm.⁵ In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in all death or disabling stroke between AAD therapy and CA at 5-year follow-up. The results are limited by a 27.5% crossover rate from drug therapy to CA. The per-protocol analysis based on the treatment received favored CA for the primary composite outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest at 12 months. The STOP-AF and EARLY-AF trials found that initial CA was more successful in maintaining freedom from atrial arrhythmias (74.6% vs 45.0%, P < .001)⁶ and fewer symptomatic atrial arrhythmias among patients with paroxysmal AF compared to AADs, without significant CA-associated adverse events.^6,7

While hospitalists should interpret the per-protocol analysis cautiously when determining the clinical benefit, these trials indicate initial CA is as safe as AADs and improves freedom from AF. Duration of AF, knowledge of periprocedural anticoagulation recommendations, and CA procedural complications are important when recommending CA (Figure). Efficacy of CA is approximately 70% in paroxysmal AF and decreases for persistent and long-standing AF.⁶ Complications of CA include venous access site hematoma, cardiac tamponade, phrenic nerve injury, pulmonary vein stenosis, atrial-esophageal fistula, left atrial flutter, and stroke due to endothelial injury and intraprocedural thrombosis.³ Therapeutic anticoagulation is required before CA and for at least 2 months post ablation regardless of the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.³

Catheter Ablation Plus Antiarrhythmics

Ongoing AADs following CA may suppress AF triggers, especially in patients with persistent AF or high-risk for recurrence post ablation (left atrial dilation). The AMIO-CAT trial found that 4 weeks of amiodarone after ablation reduced early AF recurrence at 3 months (34% vs 53%, P = .006), arrhythmia-related hospitalizations, and need for cardioversion in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF.⁸ However, amiodarone did not reduce recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias at 6 months. The POWDER-AF trial evaluated AAD use for 1 year after CA in patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF.⁹ Continuation of class IC (eg, flecainide) and III (eg, amiodarone) AADs resulted in a near 20% absolute risk reduction in recurrent atrial arrhythmias and reduced the need for repeat CA. These trials suggest that discharging patients on adjunctive AADs decreases early recurrence of AF and arrhythmia-related hospitalizations; however, studies evaluating additional clinical outcomes are needed.

Heart Failure

The AATAC trial found CA was superior to amiodarone therapy at maintaining freedom from AF and reducing unplanned hospitalizations and mortality among patients with persistent AF and HFrEF.¹⁰ The larger CASTLE-AF trial randomized patients with an ejection fraction below 35% and NYHA class II or greater symptoms with symptomatic paroxysmal AF or persistent AF in whom AAD therapy failed to CA or medical therapy.¹¹ The CA group experienced lower cardiovascular mortality (11.2% vs 22.3%, P = .009) and fewer heart failure hospitalizations (20.7% vs 35.9%, P = .004). The subsequent AMICA trial did not find a benefit of CA in patients with HFrEF and persistent or long-standing persistent AF; however, this trial was limited to 12 months, whereas the benefit of CA in CASTLE-AF was observed after 12 months.¹² Also, AMICA enrolled patients with higher NYHA class. Therefore, hospitalists should refer AF patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and NYHA II or III symptoms for CA. Comparing AMICA and CASTLE-AF suggests earlier referral for CA, prior to the development of worsening heart failure symptoms, may improve outcomes.

Data for patients with heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF) is limited. One small trial showed reduced heart failure hospitalizations in HFpEF patients treated with CA compared to AADs or beta-blockers.¹³ It is reasonable to refer HFpEF patients with persisting symptoms or reduced quality of life for CA.

The AHA Scientific Statement on Lifestyle and Risk Factor Modification for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation delineates risk factors that increase the incidence of AF, including alcohol consumption, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, and obesity.¹⁴ Among regular alcohol consumers with paroxysmal or persistent AF managed with a rhythm-control strategy, cessation of alcohol has been shown to significantly lower the incidence of recurrent AF (53.0% vs 73.0%, P = .005), and lead to a longer time until recurrence of AF compared to patients regularly consuming alcohol.¹⁵ Among patients with obstructive sleep apnea, a systematic review of nonrandomized studies showed continuous positive airway pressure is associated with maintenance of sinus rhythm.¹⁴ Control of these risk factors is associated with up to approximately 40% of patients maintaining sinus rhythm without intervention, and hospitalists should encourage lifestyle modification to maximize the probability of maintaining sinus rhythm. 

Hospitalists frequently determine the best initial management strategy for patients admitted with new-onset AF, and recent literature may shift more patients towards management with rhythm control. Based on the trials reviewed in this Progress Note, hospitalists should recommend a rhythm-control strategy for patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal, or persistent AF of <12 months’ duration and refer patients with HFrEF for CA. Adherence to guideline recommendations is essential when prescribing AADs to avoid adverse drug events. It is vital to ensure patients managed with a rhythm-control strategy receive anticoagulation for 4 weeks post cardioversion or 2 months post CA with long-term anticoagulation based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. Finally, admissions for AF should serve as a catalyst to communicate to patients the importance of addressing obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, and alcohol use disorders. Applying these evidence-based practices will enable hospitalists to make clinical decisions that improve symptom burden and survival for patients with AF.

Rosa* was one of my first patients as an intern rotating at the county hospital. Her marriage had disintegrated years earlier. To cope with depression, she hid a daily ritual of orange juice and vodka from her children. She worked as a cashier, until nausea and fatigue overwhelmed her.

The first time I met her she sat on the gurney: petite, tanned, and pregnant. Then I saw her yellow eyes and revised: temporal wasting, jaundiced, and swollen with ascites. Rosa didn’t know that alcohol could cause liver disease. Without insurance or access to primary care, her untreated alcohol use disorder (AUD) and depression had snowballed for years. 

Midway through my intern year, I’d taken care of many people with AUD. However, I’d barely learned anything about it as a medical student, though we’d spent weeks studying esoteric diseases, that now––9 years after medical school––I still have not encountered. 

Among the 28.3 million individuals in the United States with AUD, only 1% receive medication treatment.¹ In the United States, unhealthy alcohol use accounts for more than 95,000 deaths each year.² This number likely under-captures alcohol-related mortality and is higher now given recent reports of increasing alcohol-related deaths and prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use, especially among women, younger age groups, and marginalized populations.^3-5 

Rosa had alcohol-related hepatitis, which can cause severe inflammation and liver failure and quickly lead to death. As her liver failure progressed, I asked the gastroenterologists, “What other treatments can we offer? Is she a liver transplant candidate?” “Nothing” and “No” they answered.

Later, I emailed the hepatologist and transplant surgeon begging them to reevaluate her transplantation candidacy, but they told me there was no exception to the institution’s 6-month sobriety rule.

Maintaining a 6-month sobriety period is not an evidence-based criterion for transplantation. However, 50% of transplant centers do not perform transplantation prior to 6 months of alcohol abstinence for alcohol-related hepatitis due to concern for return to drinking after transplant.⁶ This practice may promote bias in patient selection for transplantation. A recent study found that individuals with alcohol-related liver disease transplanted before 6 months of abstinence had similar rates of survival and return to drinking compared to those who abstained from alcohol for 6 months and participated in AUD treatment before transplantation.⁷

There are other liver transplant practices that result in inequities for individuals with substance use disorders (SUD). Some liver transplant centers consider being on a medication for opioid use disorder a contraindication for transplantation—even if the individual is in recovery and abstaining from substances.⁸ Others mandate that individuals with alcohol-related liver disease attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings prior to transplant. While mutual help groups, including AA, may benefit some individuals, different approaches work for different people.⁹ Other psychosocial interventions (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, and residential treatment) and medications also help individuals reduce or stop drinking. Some meet their goals without any treatment. Addiction care works best when it respects autonomy and meets individuals where they are by allowing them to decide among options.

While organ allocations are a crystalized example of inequities in addiction care, they are also ethically complex. Many individuals—with and without SUD—die on waiting lists and must meet stringent transplantation criteria. However, we can at least remove the unnecessary biases that compound inequities in care people with SUD already face.

As Rosa’s liver succumbed, her kidneys failed too, and she required dialysis. She sensed what was coming. “I want everything…for now. I need to take care of my children.” I, too, wanted Rosa to live and see her youngest start kindergarten.

A few days before her discharge, I walked to the pharmacy and bought a purple journal. In a rare moment, I found Rosa alone in her room, without her ex-husband, sister, and mother, who rarely left her bedside. Together, we called AA and explored whether she could start participating in phone meetings from the hospital. I explained that one way to document a commitment to sobriety, as the transplant center’s rules dictated, was to attend and document AA meetings in this notebook. “In 5 months, you will be a liver transplant candidate,” I remember saying, wishing it to fruition.

I became Rosa’s primary care physician and saw her in clinic. Over the next few weeks, her skin took on an ashen tone. Sleep escaped her and her thoughts and speech blurred. Her walk slowed and she needed a wheelchair. The quiet fierceness that had defined her dissipated as encephalopathy took over. But until our last visit, she brought her purple journal, tracking the AA meetings she’d attended. Dialysis became intolerable, but not before Rosa made care arrangements for her girls. When that happened, she stopped dialysis and went to Mexico, where she died in her sleep after saying good-bye to her father. 

Earlier access to healthcare and effective depression and AUD treatment could have saved Rosa’s life. While it was too late for her, as hospitalists we care for many others with substance-related complications and may miss opportunities to discuss and offer evidence-based addiction treatment. For example, we initiate the most up-to-date management for a patient’s gastrointestinal bleed but may leave the alcohol discussion for someone else. It is similar for other SUD: we treat cellulitis, epidural abscesses, bacteremia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure exacerbations, and other complications of SUD without addressing the root cause of the hospitalization—other than to prescribe abstinence from substance use or, at our worst, scold individuals for continuing to use.

But what can we offer? Most healthcare professionals still do not receive addiction education during training. Without tools, we enact temporizing measures, until patients return to the hospital or die.

In addition to increasing alcohol-related morbidity, there have also been increases in drug-related overdoses, fueled by COVID-19, synthetic opioids like fentanyl, and stimulants.¹⁰ In the 12-month period ending April 2021, more than 100,000 individuals died of drug-related overdoses, the highest number of deaths ever recorded in a year.¹¹ Despite this, most healthcare systems remain unequipped to provide addiction services during hospitalization due to inadequate training, stigma, and lack of systems-based care.

Hospitalists and healthcare systems cannot be bystanders amid our worsening addiction crisis. We must empower clinicians with addiction education and ensure health systems offer evidence-based SUD services.

Educational efforts can close the knowledge gaps for both medical students and hospitalists. Medical schools should include foundational curricular content in screening, assessing, diagnosing, and treating SUD in alignment with standards set by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits US medical schools. Residency programs can offer educational conferences, cased-based discussions, and addiction medicine rotations. Hospitalists can participate in educational didactics and review evidence-based addiction guidelines.^12,13 While the focus here is on hospitalists, clinicians across practice settings and specialties will encounter patients with SUD, and all need to be well-versed in the diagnosis and treatment of addiction given the all-hands-on deck approach necessary amidst our worsening addiction crisis.

With one in nine hospitalizations involving individuals with SUD, and this number quickly rising, and with an annual cost to US hospitals of $13.2 billion, healthcare system leaders must invest in addiction care.^14,15 Hospital-based addiction services could pay for themselves and save healthcare systems money while improving the patient and clinician experience.¹⁶One way to implement hospital-based addiction care is through an addiction consult team (ACT).¹⁷ While ACT compositions vary, most are interprofessional, offer evidence-based addiction treatment, and connect patients to community care.¹⁸ Our hospital’s ACT has nurses, patient navigators, and physicians who assess, diagnose, and treat SUD, and arrange follow-up addiction care.¹⁹ In addition to caring for individual patients, our ACT has led systems change. For example, we created order sets to guide clinicians, added medications to our hospital formulary to ensure access to evidence-based addiction treatment, and partnered with community stakeholders to streamline care transitions and access to psychosocial and medication treatment. Our team also worked with hospital leadership, nursing, and a syringe service program to integrate hospital harm reduction education and supply provision. Additionally, we are building capacity among staff, trainees, and clinicians through education and systems changes.

In hospitals without an ACT, leadership can finance SUD champions and integrate them into policy-level decision-making to implement best practices in addiction care and lead hospital-wide educational efforts. This will transform hospital culture and improve care as all clinicians develop essential addiction skills.

Addiction champions and ACTs could also advocate for equitable practices for patients with SUD to reduce the stigma that both prevents patients from seeking care and results in self-discharges.²⁰ For example, with interprofessional support, we revised our in-hospital substance use policy. It previously entailed hospital security responding to substance use concerns, which unintentionally harmed patients and perpetuated stigma. Our revised policy ensures we offer medications for cravings and withdrawal, adequate pain management, and other services that address patients’ reasons for in-hospital substance use.

With the increasing prevalence of SUD among hospitalized patients, escalating substance-related deaths, rising healthcare costs, and the impact of addiction on health and well-being, addiction care, including ACTs and champions, must be adequately funded. However, sustainable financing remains a challenge.¹⁸

Caring for Rosa and others with SUD sparked my desire to learn about addiction, obtain addiction medicine board certification as a practicing hospitalist, and create an ACT that offers evidence-based addiction treatment. While much remains to be done, by collaborating with addiction champions and engaging hospital leadership, we have transformed our hospital’s approach to substance use care.

With the knowledge and resources I now have as an addiction medicine physician, I reimagine the possibilities for patients like Rosa.

Rosa died when living was possible.

*Name has been changed for patient privacy.

Rosa* was one of my first patients as an intern rotating at the county hospital. Her marriage had disintegrated years earlier. To cope with depression, she hid a daily ritual of orange juice and vodka from her children. She worked as a cashier, until nausea and fatigue overwhelmed her.

The first time I met her she sat on the gurney: petite, tanned, and pregnant. Then I saw her yellow eyes and revised: temporal wasting, jaundiced, and swollen with ascites. Rosa didn’t know that alcohol could cause liver disease. Without insurance or access to primary care, her untreated alcohol use disorder (AUD) and depression had snowballed for years. 

Midway through my intern year, I’d taken care of many people with AUD. However, I’d barely learned anything about it as a medical student, though we’d spent weeks studying esoteric diseases, that now––9 years after medical school––I still have not encountered. 

Among the 28.3 million individuals in the United States with AUD, only 1% receive medication treatment.¹ In the United States, unhealthy alcohol use accounts for more than 95,000 deaths each year.² This number likely under-captures alcohol-related mortality and is higher now given recent reports of increasing alcohol-related deaths and prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use, especially among women, younger age groups, and marginalized populations.^3-5 

Rosa had alcohol-related hepatitis, which can cause severe inflammation and liver failure and quickly lead to death. As her liver failure progressed, I asked the gastroenterologists, “What other treatments can we offer? Is she a liver transplant candidate?” “Nothing” and “No” they answered.

Later, I emailed the hepatologist and transplant surgeon begging them to reevaluate her transplantation candidacy, but they told me there was no exception to the institution’s 6-month sobriety rule.

Maintaining a 6-month sobriety period is not an evidence-based criterion for transplantation. However, 50% of transplant centers do not perform transplantation prior to 6 months of alcohol abstinence for alcohol-related hepatitis due to concern for return to drinking after transplant.⁶ This practice may promote bias in patient selection for transplantation. A recent study found that individuals with alcohol-related liver disease transplanted before 6 months of abstinence had similar rates of survival and return to drinking compared to those who abstained from alcohol for 6 months and participated in AUD treatment before transplantation.⁷

There are other liver transplant practices that result in inequities for individuals with substance use disorders (SUD). Some liver transplant centers consider being on a medication for opioid use disorder a contraindication for transplantation—even if the individual is in recovery and abstaining from substances.⁸ Others mandate that individuals with alcohol-related liver disease attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings prior to transplant. While mutual help groups, including AA, may benefit some individuals, different approaches work for different people.⁹ Other psychosocial interventions (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, and residential treatment) and medications also help individuals reduce or stop drinking. Some meet their goals without any treatment. Addiction care works best when it respects autonomy and meets individuals where they are by allowing them to decide among options.

While organ allocations are a crystalized example of inequities in addiction care, they are also ethically complex. Many individuals—with and without SUD—die on waiting lists and must meet stringent transplantation criteria. However, we can at least remove the unnecessary biases that compound inequities in care people with SUD already face.

As Rosa’s liver succumbed, her kidneys failed too, and she required dialysis. She sensed what was coming. “I want everything…for now. I need to take care of my children.” I, too, wanted Rosa to live and see her youngest start kindergarten.

A few days before her discharge, I walked to the pharmacy and bought a purple journal. In a rare moment, I found Rosa alone in her room, without her ex-husband, sister, and mother, who rarely left her bedside. Together, we called AA and explored whether she could start participating in phone meetings from the hospital. I explained that one way to document a commitment to sobriety, as the transplant center’s rules dictated, was to attend and document AA meetings in this notebook. “In 5 months, you will be a liver transplant candidate,” I remember saying, wishing it to fruition.

I became Rosa’s primary care physician and saw her in clinic. Over the next few weeks, her skin took on an ashen tone. Sleep escaped her and her thoughts and speech blurred. Her walk slowed and she needed a wheelchair. The quiet fierceness that had defined her dissipated as encephalopathy took over. But until our last visit, she brought her purple journal, tracking the AA meetings she’d attended. Dialysis became intolerable, but not before Rosa made care arrangements for her girls. When that happened, she stopped dialysis and went to Mexico, where she died in her sleep after saying good-bye to her father. 

Earlier access to healthcare and effective depression and AUD treatment could have saved Rosa’s life. While it was too late for her, as hospitalists we care for many others with substance-related complications and may miss opportunities to discuss and offer evidence-based addiction treatment. For example, we initiate the most up-to-date management for a patient’s gastrointestinal bleed but may leave the alcohol discussion for someone else. It is similar for other SUD: we treat cellulitis, epidural abscesses, bacteremia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure exacerbations, and other complications of SUD without addressing the root cause of the hospitalization—other than to prescribe abstinence from substance use or, at our worst, scold individuals for continuing to use.

But what can we offer? Most healthcare professionals still do not receive addiction education during training. Without tools, we enact temporizing measures, until patients return to the hospital or die.

In addition to increasing alcohol-related morbidity, there have also been increases in drug-related overdoses, fueled by COVID-19, synthetic opioids like fentanyl, and stimulants.¹⁰ In the 12-month period ending April 2021, more than 100,000 individuals died of drug-related overdoses, the highest number of deaths ever recorded in a year.¹¹ Despite this, most healthcare systems remain unequipped to provide addiction services during hospitalization due to inadequate training, stigma, and lack of systems-based care.

Hospitalists and healthcare systems cannot be bystanders amid our worsening addiction crisis. We must empower clinicians with addiction education and ensure health systems offer evidence-based SUD services.

Educational efforts can close the knowledge gaps for both medical students and hospitalists. Medical schools should include foundational curricular content in screening, assessing, diagnosing, and treating SUD in alignment with standards set by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits US medical schools. Residency programs can offer educational conferences, cased-based discussions, and addiction medicine rotations. Hospitalists can participate in educational didactics and review evidence-based addiction guidelines.^12,13 While the focus here is on hospitalists, clinicians across practice settings and specialties will encounter patients with SUD, and all need to be well-versed in the diagnosis and treatment of addiction given the all-hands-on deck approach necessary amidst our worsening addiction crisis.

With one in nine hospitalizations involving individuals with SUD, and this number quickly rising, and with an annual cost to US hospitals of $13.2 billion, healthcare system leaders must invest in addiction care.^14,15 Hospital-based addiction services could pay for themselves and save healthcare systems money while improving the patient and clinician experience.¹⁶One way to implement hospital-based addiction care is through an addiction consult team (ACT).¹⁷ While ACT compositions vary, most are interprofessional, offer evidence-based addiction treatment, and connect patients to community care.¹⁸ Our hospital’s ACT has nurses, patient navigators, and physicians who assess, diagnose, and treat SUD, and arrange follow-up addiction care.¹⁹ In addition to caring for individual patients, our ACT has led systems change. For example, we created order sets to guide clinicians, added medications to our hospital formulary to ensure access to evidence-based addiction treatment, and partnered with community stakeholders to streamline care transitions and access to psychosocial and medication treatment. Our team also worked with hospital leadership, nursing, and a syringe service program to integrate hospital harm reduction education and supply provision. Additionally, we are building capacity among staff, trainees, and clinicians through education and systems changes.

In hospitals without an ACT, leadership can finance SUD champions and integrate them into policy-level decision-making to implement best practices in addiction care and lead hospital-wide educational efforts. This will transform hospital culture and improve care as all clinicians develop essential addiction skills.

Addiction champions and ACTs could also advocate for equitable practices for patients with SUD to reduce the stigma that both prevents patients from seeking care and results in self-discharges.²⁰ For example, with interprofessional support, we revised our in-hospital substance use policy. It previously entailed hospital security responding to substance use concerns, which unintentionally harmed patients and perpetuated stigma. Our revised policy ensures we offer medications for cravings and withdrawal, adequate pain management, and other services that address patients’ reasons for in-hospital substance use.

With the increasing prevalence of SUD among hospitalized patients, escalating substance-related deaths, rising healthcare costs, and the impact of addiction on health and well-being, addiction care, including ACTs and champions, must be adequately funded. However, sustainable financing remains a challenge.¹⁸

Caring for Rosa and others with SUD sparked my desire to learn about addiction, obtain addiction medicine board certification as a practicing hospitalist, and create an ACT that offers evidence-based addiction treatment. While much remains to be done, by collaborating with addiction champions and engaging hospital leadership, we have transformed our hospital’s approach to substance use care.

With the knowledge and resources I now have as an addiction medicine physician, I reimagine the possibilities for patients like Rosa.

Rosa died when living was possible.

*Name has been changed for patient privacy.

Rosa* was one of my first patients as an intern rotating at the county hospital. Her marriage had disintegrated years earlier. To cope with depression, she hid a daily ritual of orange juice and vodka from her children. She worked as a cashier, until nausea and fatigue overwhelmed her.

The first time I met her she sat on the gurney: petite, tanned, and pregnant. Then I saw her yellow eyes and revised: temporal wasting, jaundiced, and swollen with ascites. Rosa didn’t know that alcohol could cause liver disease. Without insurance or access to primary care, her untreated alcohol use disorder (AUD) and depression had snowballed for years. 

Midway through my intern year, I’d taken care of many people with AUD. However, I’d barely learned anything about it as a medical student, though we’d spent weeks studying esoteric diseases, that now––9 years after medical school––I still have not encountered. 

Among the 28.3 million individuals in the United States with AUD, only 1% receive medication treatment.¹ In the United States, unhealthy alcohol use accounts for more than 95,000 deaths each year.² This number likely under-captures alcohol-related mortality and is higher now given recent reports of increasing alcohol-related deaths and prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use, especially among women, younger age groups, and marginalized populations.^3-5 

Rosa had alcohol-related hepatitis, which can cause severe inflammation and liver failure and quickly lead to death. As her liver failure progressed, I asked the gastroenterologists, “What other treatments can we offer? Is she a liver transplant candidate?” “Nothing” and “No” they answered.

Later, I emailed the hepatologist and transplant surgeon begging them to reevaluate her transplantation candidacy, but they told me there was no exception to the institution’s 6-month sobriety rule.

Maintaining a 6-month sobriety period is not an evidence-based criterion for transplantation. However, 50% of transplant centers do not perform transplantation prior to 6 months of alcohol abstinence for alcohol-related hepatitis due to concern for return to drinking after transplant.⁶ This practice may promote bias in patient selection for transplantation. A recent study found that individuals with alcohol-related liver disease transplanted before 6 months of abstinence had similar rates of survival and return to drinking compared to those who abstained from alcohol for 6 months and participated in AUD treatment before transplantation.⁷

There are other liver transplant practices that result in inequities for individuals with substance use disorders (SUD). Some liver transplant centers consider being on a medication for opioid use disorder a contraindication for transplantation—even if the individual is in recovery and abstaining from substances.⁸ Others mandate that individuals with alcohol-related liver disease attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings prior to transplant. While mutual help groups, including AA, may benefit some individuals, different approaches work for different people.⁹ Other psychosocial interventions (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, and residential treatment) and medications also help individuals reduce or stop drinking. Some meet their goals without any treatment. Addiction care works best when it respects autonomy and meets individuals where they are by allowing them to decide among options.

While organ allocations are a crystalized example of inequities in addiction care, they are also ethically complex. Many individuals—with and without SUD—die on waiting lists and must meet stringent transplantation criteria. However, we can at least remove the unnecessary biases that compound inequities in care people with SUD already face.

As Rosa’s liver succumbed, her kidneys failed too, and she required dialysis. She sensed what was coming. “I want everything…for now. I need to take care of my children.” I, too, wanted Rosa to live and see her youngest start kindergarten.

A few days before her discharge, I walked to the pharmacy and bought a purple journal. In a rare moment, I found Rosa alone in her room, without her ex-husband, sister, and mother, who rarely left her bedside. Together, we called AA and explored whether she could start participating in phone meetings from the hospital. I explained that one way to document a commitment to sobriety, as the transplant center’s rules dictated, was to attend and document AA meetings in this notebook. “In 5 months, you will be a liver transplant candidate,” I remember saying, wishing it to fruition.

I became Rosa’s primary care physician and saw her in clinic. Over the next few weeks, her skin took on an ashen tone. Sleep escaped her and her thoughts and speech blurred. Her walk slowed and she needed a wheelchair. The quiet fierceness that had defined her dissipated as encephalopathy took over. But until our last visit, she brought her purple journal, tracking the AA meetings she’d attended. Dialysis became intolerable, but not before Rosa made care arrangements for her girls. When that happened, she stopped dialysis and went to Mexico, where she died in her sleep after saying good-bye to her father. 

Earlier access to healthcare and effective depression and AUD treatment could have saved Rosa’s life. While it was too late for her, as hospitalists we care for many others with substance-related complications and may miss opportunities to discuss and offer evidence-based addiction treatment. For example, we initiate the most up-to-date management for a patient’s gastrointestinal bleed but may leave the alcohol discussion for someone else. It is similar for other SUD: we treat cellulitis, epidural abscesses, bacteremia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure exacerbations, and other complications of SUD without addressing the root cause of the hospitalization—other than to prescribe abstinence from substance use or, at our worst, scold individuals for continuing to use.

But what can we offer? Most healthcare professionals still do not receive addiction education during training. Without tools, we enact temporizing measures, until patients return to the hospital or die.

In addition to increasing alcohol-related morbidity, there have also been increases in drug-related overdoses, fueled by COVID-19, synthetic opioids like fentanyl, and stimulants.¹⁰ In the 12-month period ending April 2021, more than 100,000 individuals died of drug-related overdoses, the highest number of deaths ever recorded in a year.¹¹ Despite this, most healthcare systems remain unequipped to provide addiction services during hospitalization due to inadequate training, stigma, and lack of systems-based care.

Hospitalists and healthcare systems cannot be bystanders amid our worsening addiction crisis. We must empower clinicians with addiction education and ensure health systems offer evidence-based SUD services.

Educational efforts can close the knowledge gaps for both medical students and hospitalists. Medical schools should include foundational curricular content in screening, assessing, diagnosing, and treating SUD in alignment with standards set by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits US medical schools. Residency programs can offer educational conferences, cased-based discussions, and addiction medicine rotations. Hospitalists can participate in educational didactics and review evidence-based addiction guidelines.^12,13 While the focus here is on hospitalists, clinicians across practice settings and specialties will encounter patients with SUD, and all need to be well-versed in the diagnosis and treatment of addiction given the all-hands-on deck approach necessary amidst our worsening addiction crisis.

With one in nine hospitalizations involving individuals with SUD, and this number quickly rising, and with an annual cost to US hospitals of $13.2 billion, healthcare system leaders must invest in addiction care.^14,15 Hospital-based addiction services could pay for themselves and save healthcare systems money while improving the patient and clinician experience.¹⁶One way to implement hospital-based addiction care is through an addiction consult team (ACT).¹⁷ While ACT compositions vary, most are interprofessional, offer evidence-based addiction treatment, and connect patients to community care.¹⁸ Our hospital’s ACT has nurses, patient navigators, and physicians who assess, diagnose, and treat SUD, and arrange follow-up addiction care.¹⁹ In addition to caring for individual patients, our ACT has led systems change. For example, we created order sets to guide clinicians, added medications to our hospital formulary to ensure access to evidence-based addiction treatment, and partnered with community stakeholders to streamline care transitions and access to psychosocial and medication treatment. Our team also worked with hospital leadership, nursing, and a syringe service program to integrate hospital harm reduction education and supply provision. Additionally, we are building capacity among staff, trainees, and clinicians through education and systems changes.

In hospitals without an ACT, leadership can finance SUD champions and integrate them into policy-level decision-making to implement best practices in addiction care and lead hospital-wide educational efforts. This will transform hospital culture and improve care as all clinicians develop essential addiction skills.

Addiction champions and ACTs could also advocate for equitable practices for patients with SUD to reduce the stigma that both prevents patients from seeking care and results in self-discharges.²⁰ For example, with interprofessional support, we revised our in-hospital substance use policy. It previously entailed hospital security responding to substance use concerns, which unintentionally harmed patients and perpetuated stigma. Our revised policy ensures we offer medications for cravings and withdrawal, adequate pain management, and other services that address patients’ reasons for in-hospital substance use.

With the increasing prevalence of SUD among hospitalized patients, escalating substance-related deaths, rising healthcare costs, and the impact of addiction on health and well-being, addiction care, including ACTs and champions, must be adequately funded. However, sustainable financing remains a challenge.¹⁸

Caring for Rosa and others with SUD sparked my desire to learn about addiction, obtain addiction medicine board certification as a practicing hospitalist, and create an ACT that offers evidence-based addiction treatment. While much remains to be done, by collaborating with addiction champions and engaging hospital leadership, we have transformed our hospital’s approach to substance use care.

With the knowledge and resources I now have as an addiction medicine physician, I reimagine the possibilities for patients like Rosa.

Rosa died when living was possible.

*Name has been changed for patient privacy.

“...but it all started to get worse during the pandemic.”

As the patient’s^† door closed, I (JS) thought about what his father had shared: his 12-year-old son had experienced a slow decline in his mental health since March 2020. There had been a gradual loss of all the things his son needed for psychological well-being: school went virtual and extracurricular activities ceased, and with them went any sense of routine, normalcy, or authentic opportunities to socialize. His feelings of isolation and depression culminated in an attempt to end his own life. My mind shifted to other patients under our care: an 8-year-old with behavioral outbursts intensifying after school-based therapy ended, a 13-year-old who became suicidal from isolation and virtual bullying. These children’s families sought emergent care because they no longer had the resources to care for their children at home. My team left each of these rooms heartbroken, unsure of exactly what to say and aware of the limitations of our current healthcare system.

Before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, many pediatric providers have had similar experiences caring for countless patients who are “boarding”—awaiting transfer to a psychiatric facility for their primary acute psychiatric issue, initially in the emergency room, often for 5 days or more,¹ then ultimately admitted to a general medical floor if an appropriate psychiatric bed is still not available.² Unfortunately, just as parents have run out of resources to care for their children’s psychiatric needs, so too is our medical system lacking in resources to provide the acute care these children need in general hospitals. 

This mental health crisis began before the COVID-19 pandemic³ but has only worsened in the wake of its resulting social isolation. During the pandemic, suicide hotlines had a 1000% increase in call volumes.⁴ COVID-19–induced bed closures simultaneously worsened an existing critical bed shortage^5,6 and led to an increase in the average length of stay (LOS) for patients boarding in the emergency department (ED).⁷ In the state of Massachusetts, for example, psychiatric patients awaiting inpatient beds boarded for more than 10,000 hours in January 2021—more than ever before, and up approximately 4000 hours since January 2017.⁶ For pediatric patients, the average wait time is now 59 hours.⁶ In the first 6 months of the pandemic, 39% of children presenting to EDs for mental health complaints ended up boarding, which is an astounding figure and is unfortunately 7% higher than in 2019.⁸ Even these staggering numbers do not capture the full range of experiences, as many statistics do not account for time spent on inpatient units by patients who do not receive a bed placement after waiting hours to several days in the ED.

Shortages of space, as well as an underfunded and understaffed mental health workforce, lead to these prolonged, often traumatic boarding periods in hospitals designed to care for acute medical, rather than acute psychiatric, conditions. Patients awaiting psychiatric placement are waiting in settings that are chaotic, inconsistent, and lacking in privacy. A patient in the throes of psychosis or suicidality needs a therapeutic milieu, not one that interrupts their daily routine,² disconnects them from their existing support networks, and is punctuated by the incessant clangs of bedside monitors and the hubbub of code teams. These environments are not therapeutic³ for young infants with fevers, let alone for teenagers battling suicidality and eating disorders. In fact, for these reasons, we suspect that many of our patients’ inpatient ”behavioral escalations” are in fact triggered by their hospital environment, which may contribute to the 300% increase in the number of pharmacological restraints used during mental health visits in the ED over the past 10 years.⁹

None of us imagined when we chose to pursue pediatrics a that significant—and at times predominant—portion of our training would encompass caring for patients with acute mental health concerns. And although we did not anticipate this crisis, we have now been tasked with managing it. Throughout the day, when we are called to see our patients with primarily psychiatric pathology, we are often at war with ourselves. We weigh forming deeply meaningful relationships with these patients against the potential of unintentionally retraumatizing them or forming bonds that will be abruptly severed when patients are transferred to a psychiatric facility, which often occurs with barely a few hours’ notice. Moreover, many healthcare workers have training ill-suited to meet the needs of these patients. Just as emergency physicians can diagnose appendicitis but rely on surgeons to provide timely surgical treatment, general pediatricians identify psychiatric crises but rely on psychiatrists for ideal treatment plans. And almost daily, we are called to an “escalating” patient and arrive minutes into a stressful situation that others expect us to extinguish expeditiously. Along with nursing colleagues and the behavioral response team, we enact the treatment plan laid out by our psychiatry colleagues and wonder whether there is a better way. 

We propose the following changes to create a more ideal health system (Table). We acknowledge that each health system has unique resources, challenges, and patient populations. Thus, our recommendations are not comprehensive and are largely based on experiences within our own institutions and state, but they encompass many domains that impact and are affected by child and adolescent mental healthcare in the United States, ranging from program- and hospital-level innovation to community and legislative action.

Like all good health system designs, we recommend prioritizing prevention. This would entail funding programs and legislation such as H.R. 3180, the RISE from Trauma Act, and H.R. 8544, the STRONG Support for Children Act of 2020 (both currently under consideration in the US House of Representatives) that support early childhood development and prevent adverse childhood experiences and trauma, averting mental health diagnoses such as depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder before they begin.¹⁰

We recognize that schools and general pediatricians have far more exposure to children at risk for mental health crises than do subspecialists. Thus, we urge an equitable increase in access to mental healthcare in the community so that patients needing assistance are screened and diagnosed earlier in their illness, allowing for secondary prevention of worsening mental health disorders. We support increased funding for programs such as the Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Program, which allows primary care doctors to consult psychiatrists in real time, closing the gap between a primary care visit and specialty follow-up. Telehealth services will be key to improving access for patients themselves and to allow pediatricians to consult with mental health professionals to initiate care prior to specialist availability. We envision that strengthening school-based behavioral health resources will also help prevent ED visits. Behavioral healthcare should be integrated into schools and community centers while police presence is simultaneously reduced, as there is evidence of an increased likelihood of juvenile justice involvement for children with disabilities and mental health needs.^11,12

Ensuring access necessitates increasing the capacity of our psychiatric workforce by encouraging graduates to pursue mental health occupations with concrete financial incentives such as loan repayment and training grants. We thus support legislation such as H.R. 6597, the Mental Health Professionals Workforce Shortage Loan Repayment Act of 2018 (currently under consideration in the US House of Representatives). This may also improve recruitment and retention of individuals who are underrepresented in medicine, one step in helping ensure children have access to linguistically appropriate and culturally sensitive care. Residency programs and hospital systems should expand their training and education to identify and stabilize patients in mental health in extremis through culturally sensitive curricula focused on behavioral de-escalation techniques, trauma-informed care, and psychopharmacology. Our own residency program created a 2-week mental health rotation¹³ that includes rotating with outpatient mental health providers and our hospital’s behavioral response team, a group of trauma-informed responders for behavioral emergencies. Similar training should be available for nursing and other allied health professionals, who are often the first responders to behavioral escalations.¹³

Ideally, patients requiring higher-intensity psychiatric care would be referred to specialized pediatric behavioral health urgent care centers so their conditions can be adequately evaluated and addressed by staff trained in psychiatric management and in therapeutic environments. We believe all providers caring for children with mental health needs should be trained in basic, but core, behavioral health and de-escalation competencies, including specialized training for children with comorbid medical and neurodevelopmental diagnoses, such as autism. These centers should have specific beds for young children and those with developmental or complex care needs, and services should be available in numerous languages and levels of health literacy to allow all families to participate in their child’s care. At the same time, even nonpsychiatric EDs and inpatient units should commit resources to developing a maximally therapeutic environment, including allowing adjunctive services such as child life services, group therapy, and pet and music therapy, and create environments that support, rather than disrupt, normal routines.

Underpinning all the above innovations are changes to our healthcare payment system and provider networks, including the need for insurance coverage and payment parity for behavioral health, to ensure care is not only accessible but affordable. Additionally, for durable change, we need more than just education—we need coalition building and advocacy. Many organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, have begun this work, which we must all continue.¹⁴ Bringing in diverse partners, including health systems, providers, educators, hospital administrators, payors, elected officials, and communities, will prioritize children’s needs and create a more ideal pediatric behavioral healthcare system.¹⁵

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the dire need for comprehensive mental healthcare in the United States, a need that existed before the pandemic and will persist in a more fragile state long after it ends. Our hope is that the pandemic serves as the catalyst necessary to promote the magnitude of investments and stakeholder buy-in necessary to improve pediatric mental health and engender a radical redesign of our behavioral healthcare system. Our patients are counting on us to act. Together, we can build a system that ensures that the kids will be alright.

^†Patient details have been changed for patient privacy.

The authors thank Joanna Perdomo, MD, Amara Azubuike, JD, and Josh Greenberg, JD, for reading and providing feedback on earlier versions of this work.

“...but it all started to get worse during the pandemic.”

As the patient’s^† door closed, I (JS) thought about what his father had shared: his 12-year-old son had experienced a slow decline in his mental health since March 2020. There had been a gradual loss of all the things his son needed for psychological well-being: school went virtual and extracurricular activities ceased, and with them went any sense of routine, normalcy, or authentic opportunities to socialize. His feelings of isolation and depression culminated in an attempt to end his own life. My mind shifted to other patients under our care: an 8-year-old with behavioral outbursts intensifying after school-based therapy ended, a 13-year-old who became suicidal from isolation and virtual bullying. These children’s families sought emergent care because they no longer had the resources to care for their children at home. My team left each of these rooms heartbroken, unsure of exactly what to say and aware of the limitations of our current healthcare system.

Before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, many pediatric providers have had similar experiences caring for countless patients who are “boarding”—awaiting transfer to a psychiatric facility for their primary acute psychiatric issue, initially in the emergency room, often for 5 days or more,¹ then ultimately admitted to a general medical floor if an appropriate psychiatric bed is still not available.² Unfortunately, just as parents have run out of resources to care for their children’s psychiatric needs, so too is our medical system lacking in resources to provide the acute care these children need in general hospitals. 

This mental health crisis began before the COVID-19 pandemic³ but has only worsened in the wake of its resulting social isolation. During the pandemic, suicide hotlines had a 1000% increase in call volumes.⁴ COVID-19–induced bed closures simultaneously worsened an existing critical bed shortage^5,6 and led to an increase in the average length of stay (LOS) for patients boarding in the emergency department (ED).⁷ In the state of Massachusetts, for example, psychiatric patients awaiting inpatient beds boarded for more than 10,000 hours in January 2021—more than ever before, and up approximately 4000 hours since January 2017.⁶ For pediatric patients, the average wait time is now 59 hours.⁶ In the first 6 months of the pandemic, 39% of children presenting to EDs for mental health complaints ended up boarding, which is an astounding figure and is unfortunately 7% higher than in 2019.⁸ Even these staggering numbers do not capture the full range of experiences, as many statistics do not account for time spent on inpatient units by patients who do not receive a bed placement after waiting hours to several days in the ED.

Shortages of space, as well as an underfunded and understaffed mental health workforce, lead to these prolonged, often traumatic boarding periods in hospitals designed to care for acute medical, rather than acute psychiatric, conditions. Patients awaiting psychiatric placement are waiting in settings that are chaotic, inconsistent, and lacking in privacy. A patient in the throes of psychosis or suicidality needs a therapeutic milieu, not one that interrupts their daily routine,² disconnects them from their existing support networks, and is punctuated by the incessant clangs of bedside monitors and the hubbub of code teams. These environments are not therapeutic³ for young infants with fevers, let alone for teenagers battling suicidality and eating disorders. In fact, for these reasons, we suspect that many of our patients’ inpatient ”behavioral escalations” are in fact triggered by their hospital environment, which may contribute to the 300% increase in the number of pharmacological restraints used during mental health visits in the ED over the past 10 years.⁹

None of us imagined when we chose to pursue pediatrics a that significant—and at times predominant—portion of our training would encompass caring for patients with acute mental health concerns. And although we did not anticipate this crisis, we have now been tasked with managing it. Throughout the day, when we are called to see our patients with primarily psychiatric pathology, we are often at war with ourselves. We weigh forming deeply meaningful relationships with these patients against the potential of unintentionally retraumatizing them or forming bonds that will be abruptly severed when patients are transferred to a psychiatric facility, which often occurs with barely a few hours’ notice. Moreover, many healthcare workers have training ill-suited to meet the needs of these patients. Just as emergency physicians can diagnose appendicitis but rely on surgeons to provide timely surgical treatment, general pediatricians identify psychiatric crises but rely on psychiatrists for ideal treatment plans. And almost daily, we are called to an “escalating” patient and arrive minutes into a stressful situation that others expect us to extinguish expeditiously. Along with nursing colleagues and the behavioral response team, we enact the treatment plan laid out by our psychiatry colleagues and wonder whether there is a better way. 

We propose the following changes to create a more ideal health system (Table). We acknowledge that each health system has unique resources, challenges, and patient populations. Thus, our recommendations are not comprehensive and are largely based on experiences within our own institutions and state, but they encompass many domains that impact and are affected by child and adolescent mental healthcare in the United States, ranging from program- and hospital-level innovation to community and legislative action.

Like all good health system designs, we recommend prioritizing prevention. This would entail funding programs and legislation such as H.R. 3180, the RISE from Trauma Act, and H.R. 8544, the STRONG Support for Children Act of 2020 (both currently under consideration in the US House of Representatives) that support early childhood development and prevent adverse childhood experiences and trauma, averting mental health diagnoses such as depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder before they begin.¹⁰

We recognize that schools and general pediatricians have far more exposure to children at risk for mental health crises than do subspecialists. Thus, we urge an equitable increase in access to mental healthcare in the community so that patients needing assistance are screened and diagnosed earlier in their illness, allowing for secondary prevention of worsening mental health disorders. We support increased funding for programs such as the Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Program, which allows primary care doctors to consult psychiatrists in real time, closing the gap between a primary care visit and specialty follow-up. Telehealth services will be key to improving access for patients themselves and to allow pediatricians to consult with mental health professionals to initiate care prior to specialist availability. We envision that strengthening school-based behavioral health resources will also help prevent ED visits. Behavioral healthcare should be integrated into schools and community centers while police presence is simultaneously reduced, as there is evidence of an increased likelihood of juvenile justice involvement for children with disabilities and mental health needs.^11,12

Ensuring access necessitates increasing the capacity of our psychiatric workforce by encouraging graduates to pursue mental health occupations with concrete financial incentives such as loan repayment and training grants. We thus support legislation such as H.R. 6597, the Mental Health Professionals Workforce Shortage Loan Repayment Act of 2018 (currently under consideration in the US House of Representatives). This may also improve recruitment and retention of individuals who are underrepresented in medicine, one step in helping ensure children have access to linguistically appropriate and culturally sensitive care. Residency programs and hospital systems should expand their training and education to identify and stabilize patients in mental health in extremis through culturally sensitive curricula focused on behavioral de-escalation techniques, trauma-informed care, and psychopharmacology. Our own residency program created a 2-week mental health rotation¹³ that includes rotating with outpatient mental health providers and our hospital’s behavioral response team, a group of trauma-informed responders for behavioral emergencies. Similar training should be available for nursing and other allied health professionals, who are often the first responders to behavioral escalations.¹³

Ideally, patients requiring higher-intensity psychiatric care would be referred to specialized pediatric behavioral health urgent care centers so their conditions can be adequately evaluated and addressed by staff trained in psychiatric management and in therapeutic environments. We believe all providers caring for children with mental health needs should be trained in basic, but core, behavioral health and de-escalation competencies, including specialized training for children with comorbid medical and neurodevelopmental diagnoses, such as autism. These centers should have specific beds for young children and those with developmental or complex care needs, and services should be available in numerous languages and levels of health literacy to allow all families to participate in their child’s care. At the same time, even nonpsychiatric EDs and inpatient units should commit resources to developing a maximally therapeutic environment, including allowing adjunctive services such as child life services, group therapy, and pet and music therapy, and create environments that support, rather than disrupt, normal routines.

Underpinning all the above innovations are changes to our healthcare payment system and provider networks, including the need for insurance coverage and payment parity for behavioral health, to ensure care is not only accessible but affordable. Additionally, for durable change, we need more than just education—we need coalition building and advocacy. Many organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, have begun this work, which we must all continue.¹⁴ Bringing in diverse partners, including health systems, providers, educators, hospital administrators, payors, elected officials, and communities, will prioritize children’s needs and create a more ideal pediatric behavioral healthcare system.¹⁵

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the dire need for comprehensive mental healthcare in the United States, a need that existed before the pandemic and will persist in a more fragile state long after it ends. Our hope is that the pandemic serves as the catalyst necessary to promote the magnitude of investments and stakeholder buy-in necessary to improve pediatric mental health and engender a radical redesign of our behavioral healthcare system. Our patients are counting on us to act. Together, we can build a system that ensures that the kids will be alright.

^†Patient details have been changed for patient privacy.

The authors thank Joanna Perdomo, MD, Amara Azubuike, JD, and Josh Greenberg, JD, for reading and providing feedback on earlier versions of this work.

“...but it all started to get worse during the pandemic.”

As the patient’s^† door closed, I (JS) thought about what his father had shared: his 12-year-old son had experienced a slow decline in his mental health since March 2020. There had been a gradual loss of all the things his son needed for psychological well-being: school went virtual and extracurricular activities ceased, and with them went any sense of routine, normalcy, or authentic opportunities to socialize. His feelings of isolation and depression culminated in an attempt to end his own life. My mind shifted to other patients under our care: an 8-year-old with behavioral outbursts intensifying after school-based therapy ended, a 13-year-old who became suicidal from isolation and virtual bullying. These children’s families sought emergent care because they no longer had the resources to care for their children at home. My team left each of these rooms heartbroken, unsure of exactly what to say and aware of the limitations of our current healthcare system.

Before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, many pediatric providers have had similar experiences caring for countless patients who are “boarding”—awaiting transfer to a psychiatric facility for their primary acute psychiatric issue, initially in the emergency room, often for 5 days or more,¹ then ultimately admitted to a general medical floor if an appropriate psychiatric bed is still not available.² Unfortunately, just as parents have run out of resources to care for their children’s psychiatric needs, so too is our medical system lacking in resources to provide the acute care these children need in general hospitals. 

This mental health crisis began before the COVID-19 pandemic³ but has only worsened in the wake of its resulting social isolation. During the pandemic, suicide hotlines had a 1000% increase in call volumes.⁴ COVID-19–induced bed closures simultaneously worsened an existing critical bed shortage^5,6 and led to an increase in the average length of stay (LOS) for patients boarding in the emergency department (ED).⁷ In the state of Massachusetts, for example, psychiatric patients awaiting inpatient beds boarded for more than 10,000 hours in January 2021—more than ever before, and up approximately 4000 hours since January 2017.⁶ For pediatric patients, the average wait time is now 59 hours.⁶ In the first 6 months of the pandemic, 39% of children presenting to EDs for mental health complaints ended up boarding, which is an astounding figure and is unfortunately 7% higher than in 2019.⁸ Even these staggering numbers do not capture the full range of experiences, as many statistics do not account for time spent on inpatient units by patients who do not receive a bed placement after waiting hours to several days in the ED.

Shortages of space, as well as an underfunded and understaffed mental health workforce, lead to these prolonged, often traumatic boarding periods in hospitals designed to care for acute medical, rather than acute psychiatric, conditions. Patients awaiting psychiatric placement are waiting in settings that are chaotic, inconsistent, and lacking in privacy. A patient in the throes of psychosis or suicidality needs a therapeutic milieu, not one that interrupts their daily routine,² disconnects them from their existing support networks, and is punctuated by the incessant clangs of bedside monitors and the hubbub of code teams. These environments are not therapeutic³ for young infants with fevers, let alone for teenagers battling suicidality and eating disorders. In fact, for these reasons, we suspect that many of our patients’ inpatient ”behavioral escalations” are in fact triggered by their hospital environment, which may contribute to the 300% increase in the number of pharmacological restraints used during mental health visits in the ED over the past 10 years.⁹

None of us imagined when we chose to pursue pediatrics a that significant—and at times predominant—portion of our training would encompass caring for patients with acute mental health concerns. And although we did not anticipate this crisis, we have now been tasked with managing it. Throughout the day, when we are called to see our patients with primarily psychiatric pathology, we are often at war with ourselves. We weigh forming deeply meaningful relationships with these patients against the potential of unintentionally retraumatizing them or forming bonds that will be abruptly severed when patients are transferred to a psychiatric facility, which often occurs with barely a few hours’ notice. Moreover, many healthcare workers have training ill-suited to meet the needs of these patients. Just as emergency physicians can diagnose appendicitis but rely on surgeons to provide timely surgical treatment, general pediatricians identify psychiatric crises but rely on psychiatrists for ideal treatment plans. And almost daily, we are called to an “escalating” patient and arrive minutes into a stressful situation that others expect us to extinguish expeditiously. Along with nursing colleagues and the behavioral response team, we enact the treatment plan laid out by our psychiatry colleagues and wonder whether there is a better way. 

We propose the following changes to create a more ideal health system (Table). We acknowledge that each health system has unique resources, challenges, and patient populations. Thus, our recommendations are not comprehensive and are largely based on experiences within our own institutions and state, but they encompass many domains that impact and are affected by child and adolescent mental healthcare in the United States, ranging from program- and hospital-level innovation to community and legislative action.

Like all good health system designs, we recommend prioritizing prevention. This would entail funding programs and legislation such as H.R. 3180, the RISE from Trauma Act, and H.R. 8544, the STRONG Support for Children Act of 2020 (both currently under consideration in the US House of Representatives) that support early childhood development and prevent adverse childhood experiences and trauma, averting mental health diagnoses such as depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder before they begin.¹⁰

We recognize that schools and general pediatricians have far more exposure to children at risk for mental health crises than do subspecialists. Thus, we urge an equitable increase in access to mental healthcare in the community so that patients needing assistance are screened and diagnosed earlier in their illness, allowing for secondary prevention of worsening mental health disorders. We support increased funding for programs such as the Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Program, which allows primary care doctors to consult psychiatrists in real time, closing the gap between a primary care visit and specialty follow-up. Telehealth services will be key to improving access for patients themselves and to allow pediatricians to consult with mental health professionals to initiate care prior to specialist availability. We envision that strengthening school-based behavioral health resources will also help prevent ED visits. Behavioral healthcare should be integrated into schools and community centers while police presence is simultaneously reduced, as there is evidence of an increased likelihood of juvenile justice involvement for children with disabilities and mental health needs.^11,12

Ensuring access necessitates increasing the capacity of our psychiatric workforce by encouraging graduates to pursue mental health occupations with concrete financial incentives such as loan repayment and training grants. We thus support legislation such as H.R. 6597, the Mental Health Professionals Workforce Shortage Loan Repayment Act of 2018 (currently under consideration in the US House of Representatives). This may also improve recruitment and retention of individuals who are underrepresented in medicine, one step in helping ensure children have access to linguistically appropriate and culturally sensitive care. Residency programs and hospital systems should expand their training and education to identify and stabilize patients in mental health in extremis through culturally sensitive curricula focused on behavioral de-escalation techniques, trauma-informed care, and psychopharmacology. Our own residency program created a 2-week mental health rotation¹³ that includes rotating with outpatient mental health providers and our hospital’s behavioral response team, a group of trauma-informed responders for behavioral emergencies. Similar training should be available for nursing and other allied health professionals, who are often the first responders to behavioral escalations.¹³

Ideally, patients requiring higher-intensity psychiatric care would be referred to specialized pediatric behavioral health urgent care centers so their conditions can be adequately evaluated and addressed by staff trained in psychiatric management and in therapeutic environments. We believe all providers caring for children with mental health needs should be trained in basic, but core, behavioral health and de-escalation competencies, including specialized training for children with comorbid medical and neurodevelopmental diagnoses, such as autism. These centers should have specific beds for young children and those with developmental or complex care needs, and services should be available in numerous languages and levels of health literacy to allow all families to participate in their child’s care. At the same time, even nonpsychiatric EDs and inpatient units should commit resources to developing a maximally therapeutic environment, including allowing adjunctive services such as child life services, group therapy, and pet and music therapy, and create environments that support, rather than disrupt, normal routines.

Underpinning all the above innovations are changes to our healthcare payment system and provider networks, including the need for insurance coverage and payment parity for behavioral health, to ensure care is not only accessible but affordable. Additionally, for durable change, we need more than just education—we need coalition building and advocacy. Many organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, have begun this work, which we must all continue.¹⁴ Bringing in diverse partners, including health systems, providers, educators, hospital administrators, payors, elected officials, and communities, will prioritize children’s needs and create a more ideal pediatric behavioral healthcare system.¹⁵

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the dire need for comprehensive mental healthcare in the United States, a need that existed before the pandemic and will persist in a more fragile state long after it ends. Our hope is that the pandemic serves as the catalyst necessary to promote the magnitude of investments and stakeholder buy-in necessary to improve pediatric mental health and engender a radical redesign of our behavioral healthcare system. Our patients are counting on us to act. Together, we can build a system that ensures that the kids will be alright.

^†Patient details have been changed for patient privacy.

The authors thank Joanna Perdomo, MD, Amara Azubuike, JD, and Josh Greenberg, JD, for reading and providing feedback on earlier versions of this work.

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely^® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason^™ " (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent clear-cut conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

An infected diabetic foot ulcer requiring intravenous antibiotics prompts admission for a 58-year-old man with hypertension, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, gout, stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD), and hyperlipidemia. On admission, the hospitalist discontinued the patient’s daily 300 mg of allopurinol, which had helped prevent a flare for more than 1 year. On day 3 of hospitalization, the patient developed right knee pain, swelling, and erythema. Due to concerns for septic arthritis, he underwent lab work, imaging, and joint aspiration, which confirmed the diagnosis of an acute gout flare. The prednisone he received for his gout flare caused hyperglycemia, requiring careful insulin titration during the remainder of his hospitalization.

Gout, the most common form of inflammatory arthritis, affects 3.9% of the US population. Its incidence has doubled in the past 2 decades, partly due to an increase in risk factors for gout, including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and renal disease.¹ Patients with gout incur high rates of hospitalization and costs related to the disease and its comorbidities.² Volume depletion, diuretic use, fluid shifts, or discontinuation of gout medications put patients at high risk of developing acute flares during hospitalization.^2-4

Acute inflammatory response to monosodium urate crystal deposition in joints causes gout flares. Over time, uncontrolled gout leads to chronic inflammatory damage, causing permanent deformities and disability. Patients with uncontrolled gout have decreased work productivity and higher healthcare utilization and costs than patients with controlled gout.⁵

Gout treatment has two components: acute flare management and long-term therapy to lower serum uric acid levels. Patients with frequent gout attacks (≥two annually), tophi, or radiographic damage require urate-lowering therapy (ULT) to prevent further damage. Additionally, ULT is conditionally recommended for patients with their first flare and concomitant CKD stage 3 or higher, serum uric acid >9 mg/dL, or urolithiasis. First-line ULT incorporates xanthine oxidase inhibitors, such as allopurinol, due to efficacy and low cost.⁶ Using a treat-to-target approach, allopurinol is titrated to achieve uric acid levels <6 mg/dL.^6,7 Controlling gout can take many months and requires careful medication titration, lifestyle modifications, and clear communication with patients. Poor adherence to ULT treatment complicates overall gout control and partly results from patients’ and providers’ knowledge gaps about gout and gout medications.^8,9 Prior studies demonstrated that poor adherence to ULT contributes to increased gout flares and resource utilization.^6,9

In the authors’ experience, hospitalists discontinue ULT for three reasons. First, hospitalists hold ULT, particularly allopurinol, when a patient has either acute or chronic kidney injury, due to concern that decreased excretion of drug metabolites increases the risk of allopurinol hypersensitivity syndrome (AHS) and allopurinol toxicity.¹⁰ One small study reported a decrease or discontinuation of allopurinol in 21% of 73 admissions, citing concerns of using allopurinol in renal impairment.¹⁰ Oxipurinol, a renally excreted metabolite of allopurinol, accumulates at higher concentrations in individuals with kidney impairment. The belief that elevated concentrations increase the risk of adverse effects has guided past recommendations about safety and dosing of allopurinol in patients with CKD.^11,12 Due to safety concerns, older guidelines and literature¹¹ suggest not increasing allopurinol more than 300 mg daily in patients with CKD.

Second, clinicians may want to stop “nonessential” medications on admission in order to simplify a medication list. If a patient’s last gout flare occurred a long time ago, a clinician may think their gout no longer requires ULT.

Finally, ULT is discontinued during an acute gout flare because clinicians believe that continuing ULT will make flare symptoms worse. Allopurinol dissolves uric acid crystals, which can cause inflammation. The inflammation increases the risk of precipitating a gout flare when first starting allopurinol and during dose titration. Clinicians may feel that holding the medication during an acute flare avoids iatrogenesis that worsens the flare.

While physicians cite concerns of using allopurinol in renal impairment,¹⁰ there are no absolute contraindications to allopurinol in kidney impairment. Clinicians can prescribe xanthine oxidase inhibitors to patients with moderate-to-severe CKD and can titrate allopurinol to doses greater than 300 mg daily safely in these same patients.^6,7,12-14 Prior studies sparked concern that poor allopurinol metabolite excretion in CKD might contribute to AHS or toxicity. However, more recent studies show that patients with CKD can take allopurinol safely, but that they require slower up-titration to mitigate the risk of flares and AHS. Guidelines recommend a starting dose of ≤100 mg of allopurinol in patients with normal renal function, and even lower doses in patients with CKD.⁶ In studies showing safe dose titration in CKD, patients received an initial dose of allopurinol 50 mg daily, which increased by 50 mg every month.^13,14 When hospitalists abruptly stop ULT during hospitalization in patients with CKD, those patients have to restart from the initial low dose and up-titrate slowly back to the lowest dose that achieves serum uric acid <6 mg/dL.⁶

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is not an absolute contraindication to allopurinol use, and the scant amount of published literature does not support discontinuation. In this acute situation, a patient may require a dose reduction in allopurinol to avoid toxicity depending on the severity of AKI. A discussion with inpatient pharmacy can help find a safe dose based on current creatinine clearance.

Physicians anecdotally recognize ULT discontinuation as a cause of inpatient gout flares. Clinicians and patients should view ULT as essential, even in patients who remain symptom-free for years. Between acute flares, a patient enters a potentially asymptomatic phase called “intercritical gout” that varies in duration. Urate deposition causing tophi and damage still occur during this phase, so patients must continue on ULT even if they have no recent flare history.

ULT that appears on any outpatient medication list needs verification of dose and compliance before ordering. If a patient is actually taking a lower dose than listed or not taking ULT at all, starting at a higher dose puts them at risk for flare and AHS, especially in patients with renal disease. Continuing ULT during hospitalization after verifying dose and compliance can potentially prevent gout flares and their downstream effects, including increased costs and potential side effects from additional pain medications.

Patients on chronic ULT should continue it during an acute gout flare.^6,7 Literature and guidelines do not suggest that continuing ULT significantly worsens the intensity or duration of a flare. The initiation or up-titration of ULT, not the continuation of it, causes uric acid to dissolve, triggering an inflammatory response that increases the risk of gout flare. Therefore, guidelines recommend giving flare prophylaxis simultaneously for at least 3 to 6 months to prevent flares while starting and titrating ULT. Flare prophylaxis may continue longer depending on when a patient reaches a stable dose of ULT.^6,7 While patients are receiving acute flare treatment, continuing ULT will help lower their serum uric acid levels over time.

To emphasize the importance of treating gout with ULT even further, the most recent American College of Rheumatology gout management guidelines conditionally recommend starting ULT during an acute flare for increased adherence. Small studies have shown that initiation of ULT does not precipitate attacks or significantly increase duration of flare. Input from patients influenced this recommendation, as they felt highly motivated to start ULT during acute flare due to symptoms.⁶

Additionally, due to comorbidities, inpatients often cannot tolerate standard flare therapies, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, or oral colchicine, to treat their acute symptoms. Moreover, patients often have other analgesics, such as opiates, prescribed for pain control. During an acute flare, hospitalists will likely need to add medications to treat the acute symptoms, but ULT should be considered an essential medication and continued as well.

Allopurinol can cause mild-to-severe cutaneous adverse reactions. AHS, a rare reaction that causes significant morbidity and mortality, presents with a rash, eosinophilia, fever, hepatitis, and progressive kidney failure. Risk factors for developing AHS include kidney impairment, higher starting doses, concurrent diuretic use, and presence of the genetic marker HLA B*5801.¹² AHS usually occurs in the first 8 weeks of initiation of allopurinol, but can occur later in treatment, especially in those with risk factors—notably kidney impairment.¹² When a patient on allopurinol develops a rash, the clinician should consider stopping allopurinol if concerned about AHS or, in milder cases, decrease the dose until the rash resolves.

When you see ULT on a patient’s medication list, verify the dose with the patient and continue it (even during an acute gout flare) unless a new rash has developed, or you are concerned about a drug-drug interaction. If a patient has a significant AKI, consider discussing dose modifications with your inpatient pharmacist.

• Consider ULT an essential medication and continue it during the hospitalization of a patient with a history of gout.
• Continue ULT while treating an acute gout flare.
• Continue ULT in patients with AKI and CKD, but discuss dose modifications with a pharmacist for AKI patients.

In the clinical scenario, the hospitalist did not treat ULT as an essential medication on admission, and the patient’s gout flared, leading to increased morbidity, resource utilization, and cost of hospitalization. Stopping ULT has downstream effects after discharge, including delays in achieving prior gout control. If ULT is discontinued, outpatient clinicians must restart it at lower doses and then up-titrate slowly, increasing the risk of flares and possibly contributing to nonadherence. During hospitalization, clinicians should continue ULT.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason™”? Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason™” topics by emailing [email protected]

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely^® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason^™ " (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent clear-cut conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

An infected diabetic foot ulcer requiring intravenous antibiotics prompts admission for a 58-year-old man with hypertension, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, gout, stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD), and hyperlipidemia. On admission, the hospitalist discontinued the patient’s daily 300 mg of allopurinol, which had helped prevent a flare for more than 1 year. On day 3 of hospitalization, the patient developed right knee pain, swelling, and erythema. Due to concerns for septic arthritis, he underwent lab work, imaging, and joint aspiration, which confirmed the diagnosis of an acute gout flare. The prednisone he received for his gout flare caused hyperglycemia, requiring careful insulin titration during the remainder of his hospitalization.

Gout, the most common form of inflammatory arthritis, affects 3.9% of the US population. Its incidence has doubled in the past 2 decades, partly due to an increase in risk factors for gout, including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and renal disease.¹ Patients with gout incur high rates of hospitalization and costs related to the disease and its comorbidities.² Volume depletion, diuretic use, fluid shifts, or discontinuation of gout medications put patients at high risk of developing acute flares during hospitalization.^2-4

Acute inflammatory response to monosodium urate crystal deposition in joints causes gout flares. Over time, uncontrolled gout leads to chronic inflammatory damage, causing permanent deformities and disability. Patients with uncontrolled gout have decreased work productivity and higher healthcare utilization and costs than patients with controlled gout.⁵

Gout treatment has two components: acute flare management and long-term therapy to lower serum uric acid levels. Patients with frequent gout attacks (≥two annually), tophi, or radiographic damage require urate-lowering therapy (ULT) to prevent further damage. Additionally, ULT is conditionally recommended for patients with their first flare and concomitant CKD stage 3 or higher, serum uric acid >9 mg/dL, or urolithiasis. First-line ULT incorporates xanthine oxidase inhibitors, such as allopurinol, due to efficacy and low cost.⁶ Using a treat-to-target approach, allopurinol is titrated to achieve uric acid levels <6 mg/dL.^6,7 Controlling gout can take many months and requires careful medication titration, lifestyle modifications, and clear communication with patients. Poor adherence to ULT treatment complicates overall gout control and partly results from patients’ and providers’ knowledge gaps about gout and gout medications.^8,9 Prior studies demonstrated that poor adherence to ULT contributes to increased gout flares and resource utilization.^6,9

In the authors’ experience, hospitalists discontinue ULT for three reasons. First, hospitalists hold ULT, particularly allopurinol, when a patient has either acute or chronic kidney injury, due to concern that decreased excretion of drug metabolites increases the risk of allopurinol hypersensitivity syndrome (AHS) and allopurinol toxicity.¹⁰ One small study reported a decrease or discontinuation of allopurinol in 21% of 73 admissions, citing concerns of using allopurinol in renal impairment.¹⁰ Oxipurinol, a renally excreted metabolite of allopurinol, accumulates at higher concentrations in individuals with kidney impairment. The belief that elevated concentrations increase the risk of adverse effects has guided past recommendations about safety and dosing of allopurinol in patients with CKD.^11,12 Due to safety concerns, older guidelines and literature¹¹ suggest not increasing allopurinol more than 300 mg daily in patients with CKD.

Second, clinicians may want to stop “nonessential” medications on admission in order to simplify a medication list. If a patient’s last gout flare occurred a long time ago, a clinician may think their gout no longer requires ULT.

Finally, ULT is discontinued during an acute gout flare because clinicians believe that continuing ULT will make flare symptoms worse. Allopurinol dissolves uric acid crystals, which can cause inflammation. The inflammation increases the risk of precipitating a gout flare when first starting allopurinol and during dose titration. Clinicians may feel that holding the medication during an acute flare avoids iatrogenesis that worsens the flare.

While physicians cite concerns of using allopurinol in renal impairment,¹⁰ there are no absolute contraindications to allopurinol in kidney impairment. Clinicians can prescribe xanthine oxidase inhibitors to patients with moderate-to-severe CKD and can titrate allopurinol to doses greater than 300 mg daily safely in these same patients.^6,7,12-14 Prior studies sparked concern that poor allopurinol metabolite excretion in CKD might contribute to AHS or toxicity. However, more recent studies show that patients with CKD can take allopurinol safely, but that they require slower up-titration to mitigate the risk of flares and AHS. Guidelines recommend a starting dose of ≤100 mg of allopurinol in patients with normal renal function, and even lower doses in patients with CKD.⁶ In studies showing safe dose titration in CKD, patients received an initial dose of allopurinol 50 mg daily, which increased by 50 mg every month.^13,14 When hospitalists abruptly stop ULT during hospitalization in patients with CKD, those patients have to restart from the initial low dose and up-titrate slowly back to the lowest dose that achieves serum uric acid <6 mg/dL.⁶

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is not an absolute contraindication to allopurinol use, and the scant amount of published literature does not support discontinuation. In this acute situation, a patient may require a dose reduction in allopurinol to avoid toxicity depending on the severity of AKI. A discussion with inpatient pharmacy can help find a safe dose based on current creatinine clearance.

Physicians anecdotally recognize ULT discontinuation as a cause of inpatient gout flares. Clinicians and patients should view ULT as essential, even in patients who remain symptom-free for years. Between acute flares, a patient enters a potentially asymptomatic phase called “intercritical gout” that varies in duration. Urate deposition causing tophi and damage still occur during this phase, so patients must continue on ULT even if they have no recent flare history.

ULT that appears on any outpatient medication list needs verification of dose and compliance before ordering. If a patient is actually taking a lower dose than listed or not taking ULT at all, starting at a higher dose puts them at risk for flare and AHS, especially in patients with renal disease. Continuing ULT during hospitalization after verifying dose and compliance can potentially prevent gout flares and their downstream effects, including increased costs and potential side effects from additional pain medications.

Patients on chronic ULT should continue it during an acute gout flare.^6,7 Literature and guidelines do not suggest that continuing ULT significantly worsens the intensity or duration of a flare. The initiation or up-titration of ULT, not the continuation of it, causes uric acid to dissolve, triggering an inflammatory response that increases the risk of gout flare. Therefore, guidelines recommend giving flare prophylaxis simultaneously for at least 3 to 6 months to prevent flares while starting and titrating ULT. Flare prophylaxis may continue longer depending on when a patient reaches a stable dose of ULT.^6,7 While patients are receiving acute flare treatment, continuing ULT will help lower their serum uric acid levels over time.

To emphasize the importance of treating gout with ULT even further, the most recent American College of Rheumatology gout management guidelines conditionally recommend starting ULT during an acute flare for increased adherence. Small studies have shown that initiation of ULT does not precipitate attacks or significantly increase duration of flare. Input from patients influenced this recommendation, as they felt highly motivated to start ULT during acute flare due to symptoms.⁶

Additionally, due to comorbidities, inpatients often cannot tolerate standard flare therapies, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, or oral colchicine, to treat their acute symptoms. Moreover, patients often have other analgesics, such as opiates, prescribed for pain control. During an acute flare, hospitalists will likely need to add medications to treat the acute symptoms, but ULT should be considered an essential medication and continued as well.

Allopurinol can cause mild-to-severe cutaneous adverse reactions. AHS, a rare reaction that causes significant morbidity and mortality, presents with a rash, eosinophilia, fever, hepatitis, and progressive kidney failure. Risk factors for developing AHS include kidney impairment, higher starting doses, concurrent diuretic use, and presence of the genetic marker HLA B*5801.¹² AHS usually occurs in the first 8 weeks of initiation of allopurinol, but can occur later in treatment, especially in those with risk factors—notably kidney impairment.¹² When a patient on allopurinol develops a rash, the clinician should consider stopping allopurinol if concerned about AHS or, in milder cases, decrease the dose until the rash resolves.

When you see ULT on a patient’s medication list, verify the dose with the patient and continue it (even during an acute gout flare) unless a new rash has developed, or you are concerned about a drug-drug interaction. If a patient has a significant AKI, consider discussing dose modifications with your inpatient pharmacist.

• Consider ULT an essential medication and continue it during the hospitalization of a patient with a history of gout.
• Continue ULT while treating an acute gout flare.
• Continue ULT in patients with AKI and CKD, but discuss dose modifications with a pharmacist for AKI patients.

In the clinical scenario, the hospitalist did not treat ULT as an essential medication on admission, and the patient’s gout flared, leading to increased morbidity, resource utilization, and cost of hospitalization. Stopping ULT has downstream effects after discharge, including delays in achieving prior gout control. If ULT is discontinued, outpatient clinicians must restart it at lower doses and then up-titrate slowly, increasing the risk of flares and possibly contributing to nonadherence. During hospitalization, clinicians should continue ULT.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason™”? Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason™” topics by emailing [email protected]

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely^® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason^™ " (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent clear-cut conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

An infected diabetic foot ulcer requiring intravenous antibiotics prompts admission for a 58-year-old man with hypertension, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, gout, stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD), and hyperlipidemia. On admission, the hospitalist discontinued the patient’s daily 300 mg of allopurinol, which had helped prevent a flare for more than 1 year. On day 3 of hospitalization, the patient developed right knee pain, swelling, and erythema. Due to concerns for septic arthritis, he underwent lab work, imaging, and joint aspiration, which confirmed the diagnosis of an acute gout flare. The prednisone he received for his gout flare caused hyperglycemia, requiring careful insulin titration during the remainder of his hospitalization.

Gout, the most common form of inflammatory arthritis, affects 3.9% of the US population. Its incidence has doubled in the past 2 decades, partly due to an increase in risk factors for gout, including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and renal disease.¹ Patients with gout incur high rates of hospitalization and costs related to the disease and its comorbidities.² Volume depletion, diuretic use, fluid shifts, or discontinuation of gout medications put patients at high risk of developing acute flares during hospitalization.^2-4

Acute inflammatory response to monosodium urate crystal deposition in joints causes gout flares. Over time, uncontrolled gout leads to chronic inflammatory damage, causing permanent deformities and disability. Patients with uncontrolled gout have decreased work productivity and higher healthcare utilization and costs than patients with controlled gout.⁵

Gout treatment has two components: acute flare management and long-term therapy to lower serum uric acid levels. Patients with frequent gout attacks (≥two annually), tophi, or radiographic damage require urate-lowering therapy (ULT) to prevent further damage. Additionally, ULT is conditionally recommended for patients with their first flare and concomitant CKD stage 3 or higher, serum uric acid >9 mg/dL, or urolithiasis. First-line ULT incorporates xanthine oxidase inhibitors, such as allopurinol, due to efficacy and low cost.⁶ Using a treat-to-target approach, allopurinol is titrated to achieve uric acid levels <6 mg/dL.^6,7 Controlling gout can take many months and requires careful medication titration, lifestyle modifications, and clear communication with patients. Poor adherence to ULT treatment complicates overall gout control and partly results from patients’ and providers’ knowledge gaps about gout and gout medications.^8,9 Prior studies demonstrated that poor adherence to ULT contributes to increased gout flares and resource utilization.^6,9

In the authors’ experience, hospitalists discontinue ULT for three reasons. First, hospitalists hold ULT, particularly allopurinol, when a patient has either acute or chronic kidney injury, due to concern that decreased excretion of drug metabolites increases the risk of allopurinol hypersensitivity syndrome (AHS) and allopurinol toxicity.¹⁰ One small study reported a decrease or discontinuation of allopurinol in 21% of 73 admissions, citing concerns of using allopurinol in renal impairment.¹⁰ Oxipurinol, a renally excreted metabolite of allopurinol, accumulates at higher concentrations in individuals with kidney impairment. The belief that elevated concentrations increase the risk of adverse effects has guided past recommendations about safety and dosing of allopurinol in patients with CKD.^11,12 Due to safety concerns, older guidelines and literature¹¹ suggest not increasing allopurinol more than 300 mg daily in patients with CKD.

Second, clinicians may want to stop “nonessential” medications on admission in order to simplify a medication list. If a patient’s last gout flare occurred a long time ago, a clinician may think their gout no longer requires ULT.

Finally, ULT is discontinued during an acute gout flare because clinicians believe that continuing ULT will make flare symptoms worse. Allopurinol dissolves uric acid crystals, which can cause inflammation. The inflammation increases the risk of precipitating a gout flare when first starting allopurinol and during dose titration. Clinicians may feel that holding the medication during an acute flare avoids iatrogenesis that worsens the flare.

While physicians cite concerns of using allopurinol in renal impairment,¹⁰ there are no absolute contraindications to allopurinol in kidney impairment. Clinicians can prescribe xanthine oxidase inhibitors to patients with moderate-to-severe CKD and can titrate allopurinol to doses greater than 300 mg daily safely in these same patients.^6,7,12-14 Prior studies sparked concern that poor allopurinol metabolite excretion in CKD might contribute to AHS or toxicity. However, more recent studies show that patients with CKD can take allopurinol safely, but that they require slower up-titration to mitigate the risk of flares and AHS. Guidelines recommend a starting dose of ≤100 mg of allopurinol in patients with normal renal function, and even lower doses in patients with CKD.⁶ In studies showing safe dose titration in CKD, patients received an initial dose of allopurinol 50 mg daily, which increased by 50 mg every month.^13,14 When hospitalists abruptly stop ULT during hospitalization in patients with CKD, those patients have to restart from the initial low dose and up-titrate slowly back to the lowest dose that achieves serum uric acid <6 mg/dL.⁶

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is not an absolute contraindication to allopurinol use, and the scant amount of published literature does not support discontinuation. In this acute situation, a patient may require a dose reduction in allopurinol to avoid toxicity depending on the severity of AKI. A discussion with inpatient pharmacy can help find a safe dose based on current creatinine clearance.

Physicians anecdotally recognize ULT discontinuation as a cause of inpatient gout flares. Clinicians and patients should view ULT as essential, even in patients who remain symptom-free for years. Between acute flares, a patient enters a potentially asymptomatic phase called “intercritical gout” that varies in duration. Urate deposition causing tophi and damage still occur during this phase, so patients must continue on ULT even if they have no recent flare history.

ULT that appears on any outpatient medication list needs verification of dose and compliance before ordering. If a patient is actually taking a lower dose than listed or not taking ULT at all, starting at a higher dose puts them at risk for flare and AHS, especially in patients with renal disease. Continuing ULT during hospitalization after verifying dose and compliance can potentially prevent gout flares and their downstream effects, including increased costs and potential side effects from additional pain medications.

Patients on chronic ULT should continue it during an acute gout flare.^6,7 Literature and guidelines do not suggest that continuing ULT significantly worsens the intensity or duration of a flare. The initiation or up-titration of ULT, not the continuation of it, causes uric acid to dissolve, triggering an inflammatory response that increases the risk of gout flare. Therefore, guidelines recommend giving flare prophylaxis simultaneously for at least 3 to 6 months to prevent flares while starting and titrating ULT. Flare prophylaxis may continue longer depending on when a patient reaches a stable dose of ULT.^6,7 While patients are receiving acute flare treatment, continuing ULT will help lower their serum uric acid levels over time.

To emphasize the importance of treating gout with ULT even further, the most recent American College of Rheumatology gout management guidelines conditionally recommend starting ULT during an acute flare for increased adherence. Small studies have shown that initiation of ULT does not precipitate attacks or significantly increase duration of flare. Input from patients influenced this recommendation, as they felt highly motivated to start ULT during acute flare due to symptoms.⁶

Additionally, due to comorbidities, inpatients often cannot tolerate standard flare therapies, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, or oral colchicine, to treat their acute symptoms. Moreover, patients often have other analgesics, such as opiates, prescribed for pain control. During an acute flare, hospitalists will likely need to add medications to treat the acute symptoms, but ULT should be considered an essential medication and continued as well.

Allopurinol can cause mild-to-severe cutaneous adverse reactions. AHS, a rare reaction that causes significant morbidity and mortality, presents with a rash, eosinophilia, fever, hepatitis, and progressive kidney failure. Risk factors for developing AHS include kidney impairment, higher starting doses, concurrent diuretic use, and presence of the genetic marker HLA B*5801.¹² AHS usually occurs in the first 8 weeks of initiation of allopurinol, but can occur later in treatment, especially in those with risk factors—notably kidney impairment.¹² When a patient on allopurinol develops a rash, the clinician should consider stopping allopurinol if concerned about AHS or, in milder cases, decrease the dose until the rash resolves.

When you see ULT on a patient’s medication list, verify the dose with the patient and continue it (even during an acute gout flare) unless a new rash has developed, or you are concerned about a drug-drug interaction. If a patient has a significant AKI, consider discussing dose modifications with your inpatient pharmacist.

• Consider ULT an essential medication and continue it during the hospitalization of a patient with a history of gout.
• Continue ULT while treating an acute gout flare.
• Continue ULT in patients with AKI and CKD, but discuss dose modifications with a pharmacist for AKI patients.

In the clinical scenario, the hospitalist did not treat ULT as an essential medication on admission, and the patient’s gout flared, leading to increased morbidity, resource utilization, and cost of hospitalization. Stopping ULT has downstream effects after discharge, including delays in achieving prior gout control. If ULT is discontinued, outpatient clinicians must restart it at lower doses and then up-titrate slowly, increasing the risk of flares and possibly contributing to nonadherence. During hospitalization, clinicians should continue ULT.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason™”? Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason™” topics by emailing [email protected]

Alcohol is the most common substance implicated in hospitalizations for substance use disorders,¹ and as a result, hospitalists commonly diagnose and manage alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the inpatient medical setting. The 2020 guidelines of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) provide updated recommendations for the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of patients hospitalized with AWS, which we have condensed to emphasize key changes from the last update² and clarify ongoing areas of uncertainty. 

Diagnosis

Recommendation 1. All inpatients who have used alcohol recently or regularly should be risk-stratified for AWS, regardless of whether or not they have suggestive symptoms (recommendations I.3, I.4, I.5, II.10). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-(Piccinelli) Consumption (AUDIT-PC) identifies patients at risk for AWS, and the Prediction of Alcohol Withdrawal Severity Scale (PAWSS) identifies those at risk for severe or complicated AWS, which includes seizures and alcohol withdrawal delirium (formerly delirium tremens). The guideline emphasizes use of these tools rather than simply initiating Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol, revised (CIWA-Ar) monitoring on all such patients to diagnose AWS, as CIWA-Ar was developed for monitoring response to treatment, not diagnosis (recommendation I.6). 

Treating Mild/Moderate or Uncomplicated AWS

Recommendation 2. Because of their proven track record of reducing the incidence of seizure and alcohol withdrawal delirium, benzodiazepines remain the recommended first-line therapy (recommendations V.13, V.16). Symptom-triggered administration of benzodiazepines (via CIWA-Ar) is recommended over fixed-dose administration because the former is associated with shorter length of stay and lower cumulative benzodiazepine administration^3,4 (recommendation V.23). Patients with mild AWS who are at low risk for severe or complicated withdrawal should be monitored for up to 36 hours for the development of worsening symptoms (recommendation V.1). For patients with high CIWA-Ar scores or who are at increased risk for severe or complicated AWS, frequent administration of moderate to high doses of a long-acting benzodiazepine early in AWS treatment (a practice called frontloading) is recommended to quickly control symptoms and prevent clinical worsening. This approach has been shown to reduce the incidence of seizures and alcohol withdrawal delirium (recommendations V.14, V.19, V.24).

Carbamazepine or gabapentin may be used in mild or moderate AWS if benzodiazepines are contraindicated; however, neither agent is recommended as first-line therapy because a clear reduction in seizure and withdrawal delirium has not been established (recommendation V.16). Alpha-2 agonists (eg, clonidine, dexmedetomidine) may be used to treat persistent autonomic hyperactivity or anxiety when these are not adequately controlled by benzodiazepines alone (recommendation V.36).

Treating Severe or Complicated AWS

Recommendation 3. The guideline defines severe AWS as withdrawal with severe signs and symptoms, and complicated AWS as withdrawal accompanied by seizures or delirium (Appendix Table⁵). The development of complications warrants prompt treatment. Patients who experience seizure should receive a fast-acting benzodiazepine (eg, intravenous [IV] diazepam or lorazepam) (recommendation VI.4). Patients with withdrawal delirium should receive a benzodiazepine (preferably parenterally) dosed to achieve light sedation. Clinicians should be prepared for the possibility that large doses may be required and to monitor patients for oversedation and respiratory depression (recommendations VI.13, VI.17). Antipsychotics may be used as adjuncts when withdrawal delirium or other symptoms, such as hallucinosis, are not adequately controlled by benzodiazepines alone, but should not be used as monotherapy (recommendation VI.20). The guideline emphasizes that alpha-2 agonists should not be used to treat withdrawal delirium (recommendation VI.21), but they may be used as adjuncts for resistant alcohol withdrawal in the intensive care unit (ICU) (recommendations VI.27, VI.29). Phenobarbital is an acceptable alternative to benzodiazepines for severe withdrawal (recommendation V.17); however, the guideline recommends that clinicians should be experienced in its use.

Treating Wernicke Encephalopathy

Recommendation 4. Thiamine should be administered to prevent Wernicke encephalopathy (WE), with parenteral formulations recommended in patients with malnutrition, severe/complicated withdrawal, or requiring ICU-level care (recommendations V.7, V.8). In particular, all patients admitted to an ICU for AWS should receive thiamine, as diagnosis of WE is often difficult in this population. Although there is no consensus on the required dose of thiamine to treat WE, 100 mg IV or intramuscularly (IM) daily for 3 to 5 days is commonly administered (recommendation V.7). Because of a lack of evidence of harm, thiamine may be given before, after, or concurrently with glucose or dextrose (recommendation V.7). The guideline does not make a specific recommendation regarding how to risk-stratify patients for WE.

Treating Underlying Alcohol Use Disorder 

Recommendation 5. Hospitalization for AWS is an important opportunity to engage patients in treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD), including pharmacotherapy and connection with outpatient providers (recommendation V.12). The guideline emphasizes that treatment for AUD should be initiated concomitantly with AWS management whenever possible but does not make recommendations regarding specific pharmacotherapies.

This guideline was authored by a committee of emergency medicine physicians, psychiatrists, and internists using the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense guidelines and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to combine the scientific literature with expert opinion. The result is a series of recommendations for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists that are not rated by strength; an assessment of the quality of the supporting evidence is available in an appendix. Four of the nine guideline committee members reported significant financial relationships with industry and other entities relevant to these guidelines.

Despite concern about oversedation from phenobarbital raised in small case series,⁶ observational studies comparing phenobarbital with benzodiazepines suggest phenobarbital has similar efficacy for treating AWS and that oversedation is rare.^7-9 Large randomized controlled trials in this area are lacking; however, at least one small randomized controlled trial¹⁰ among patients with AWS presenting to emergency departments supports the safety and efficacy of phenobarbital when used in combination with benzodiazepines. Given the growing body of evidence supporting the safety of phenobarbital, we believe a stronger recommendation for use in patients presenting with alcohol withdrawal delirium or treatment-resistant alcohol withdrawal is warranted. The guidelines also suggest that only “experienced clinicians” use phenobarbital for AWS, which may suppress appropriate use. Nationally, phenobarbital use for AWS remains low.¹¹Finally, although the guideline recommends initiation of treatment for AUD, specific recommendations for pharmacotherapy are not provided. Three medications currently have approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of AUD: acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram. Large randomized controlled trials support the safety and efficacy of acamprosate and naltrexone, with or without counselling, in the treatment of AUD,¹² and disulfiram may be appropriate for selected highly motivated patients. We believe more specific recommendations to assist in choosing among these options would be useful.

More data are needed on the safety and efficacy of phenobarbital in patients with AWS, as well as comparative effectiveness against benzodiazepines. Recruitment is ongoing for a single clinical trial comparing the effect of phenobarbital and lorazepam on length of stay among patients in the ICU with AWS (NCT04156464); to date, no randomized trials of phenobarbital have been conducted in medical inpatients with AWS. In addition, gaps in the literature exist regarding benzodiazepine selection, and head-to-head comparisons of symptom-triggered usage of different benzodiazepines are lacking.

Alcohol is the most common substance implicated in hospitalizations for substance use disorders,¹ and as a result, hospitalists commonly diagnose and manage alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the inpatient medical setting. The 2020 guidelines of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) provide updated recommendations for the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of patients hospitalized with AWS, which we have condensed to emphasize key changes from the last update² and clarify ongoing areas of uncertainty. 

Diagnosis

Recommendation 1. All inpatients who have used alcohol recently or regularly should be risk-stratified for AWS, regardless of whether or not they have suggestive symptoms (recommendations I.3, I.4, I.5, II.10). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-(Piccinelli) Consumption (AUDIT-PC) identifies patients at risk for AWS, and the Prediction of Alcohol Withdrawal Severity Scale (PAWSS) identifies those at risk for severe or complicated AWS, which includes seizures and alcohol withdrawal delirium (formerly delirium tremens). The guideline emphasizes use of these tools rather than simply initiating Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol, revised (CIWA-Ar) monitoring on all such patients to diagnose AWS, as CIWA-Ar was developed for monitoring response to treatment, not diagnosis (recommendation I.6). 

Treating Mild/Moderate or Uncomplicated AWS

Recommendation 2. Because of their proven track record of reducing the incidence of seizure and alcohol withdrawal delirium, benzodiazepines remain the recommended first-line therapy (recommendations V.13, V.16). Symptom-triggered administration of benzodiazepines (via CIWA-Ar) is recommended over fixed-dose administration because the former is associated with shorter length of stay and lower cumulative benzodiazepine administration^3,4 (recommendation V.23). Patients with mild AWS who are at low risk for severe or complicated withdrawal should be monitored for up to 36 hours for the development of worsening symptoms (recommendation V.1). For patients with high CIWA-Ar scores or who are at increased risk for severe or complicated AWS, frequent administration of moderate to high doses of a long-acting benzodiazepine early in AWS treatment (a practice called frontloading) is recommended to quickly control symptoms and prevent clinical worsening. This approach has been shown to reduce the incidence of seizures and alcohol withdrawal delirium (recommendations V.14, V.19, V.24).

Carbamazepine or gabapentin may be used in mild or moderate AWS if benzodiazepines are contraindicated; however, neither agent is recommended as first-line therapy because a clear reduction in seizure and withdrawal delirium has not been established (recommendation V.16). Alpha-2 agonists (eg, clonidine, dexmedetomidine) may be used to treat persistent autonomic hyperactivity or anxiety when these are not adequately controlled by benzodiazepines alone (recommendation V.36).

Treating Severe or Complicated AWS

Recommendation 3. The guideline defines severe AWS as withdrawal with severe signs and symptoms, and complicated AWS as withdrawal accompanied by seizures or delirium (Appendix Table⁵). The development of complications warrants prompt treatment. Patients who experience seizure should receive a fast-acting benzodiazepine (eg, intravenous [IV] diazepam or lorazepam) (recommendation VI.4). Patients with withdrawal delirium should receive a benzodiazepine (preferably parenterally) dosed to achieve light sedation. Clinicians should be prepared for the possibility that large doses may be required and to monitor patients for oversedation and respiratory depression (recommendations VI.13, VI.17). Antipsychotics may be used as adjuncts when withdrawal delirium or other symptoms, such as hallucinosis, are not adequately controlled by benzodiazepines alone, but should not be used as monotherapy (recommendation VI.20). The guideline emphasizes that alpha-2 agonists should not be used to treat withdrawal delirium (recommendation VI.21), but they may be used as adjuncts for resistant alcohol withdrawal in the intensive care unit (ICU) (recommendations VI.27, VI.29). Phenobarbital is an acceptable alternative to benzodiazepines for severe withdrawal (recommendation V.17); however, the guideline recommends that clinicians should be experienced in its use.

Treating Wernicke Encephalopathy

Recommendation 4. Thiamine should be administered to prevent Wernicke encephalopathy (WE), with parenteral formulations recommended in patients with malnutrition, severe/complicated withdrawal, or requiring ICU-level care (recommendations V.7, V.8). In particular, all patients admitted to an ICU for AWS should receive thiamine, as diagnosis of WE is often difficult in this population. Although there is no consensus on the required dose of thiamine to treat WE, 100 mg IV or intramuscularly (IM) daily for 3 to 5 days is commonly administered (recommendation V.7). Because of a lack of evidence of harm, thiamine may be given before, after, or concurrently with glucose or dextrose (recommendation V.7). The guideline does not make a specific recommendation regarding how to risk-stratify patients for WE.

Treating Underlying Alcohol Use Disorder 

Recommendation 5. Hospitalization for AWS is an important opportunity to engage patients in treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD), including pharmacotherapy and connection with outpatient providers (recommendation V.12). The guideline emphasizes that treatment for AUD should be initiated concomitantly with AWS management whenever possible but does not make recommendations regarding specific pharmacotherapies.

This guideline was authored by a committee of emergency medicine physicians, psychiatrists, and internists using the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense guidelines and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to combine the scientific literature with expert opinion. The result is a series of recommendations for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists that are not rated by strength; an assessment of the quality of the supporting evidence is available in an appendix. Four of the nine guideline committee members reported significant financial relationships with industry and other entities relevant to these guidelines.

Despite concern about oversedation from phenobarbital raised in small case series,⁶ observational studies comparing phenobarbital with benzodiazepines suggest phenobarbital has similar efficacy for treating AWS and that oversedation is rare.^7-9 Large randomized controlled trials in this area are lacking; however, at least one small randomized controlled trial¹⁰ among patients with AWS presenting to emergency departments supports the safety and efficacy of phenobarbital when used in combination with benzodiazepines. Given the growing body of evidence supporting the safety of phenobarbital, we believe a stronger recommendation for use in patients presenting with alcohol withdrawal delirium or treatment-resistant alcohol withdrawal is warranted. The guidelines also suggest that only “experienced clinicians” use phenobarbital for AWS, which may suppress appropriate use. Nationally, phenobarbital use for AWS remains low.¹¹Finally, although the guideline recommends initiation of treatment for AUD, specific recommendations for pharmacotherapy are not provided. Three medications currently have approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of AUD: acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram. Large randomized controlled trials support the safety and efficacy of acamprosate and naltrexone, with or without counselling, in the treatment of AUD,¹² and disulfiram may be appropriate for selected highly motivated patients. We believe more specific recommendations to assist in choosing among these options would be useful.

More data are needed on the safety and efficacy of phenobarbital in patients with AWS, as well as comparative effectiveness against benzodiazepines. Recruitment is ongoing for a single clinical trial comparing the effect of phenobarbital and lorazepam on length of stay among patients in the ICU with AWS (NCT04156464); to date, no randomized trials of phenobarbital have been conducted in medical inpatients with AWS. In addition, gaps in the literature exist regarding benzodiazepine selection, and head-to-head comparisons of symptom-triggered usage of different benzodiazepines are lacking.

Alcohol is the most common substance implicated in hospitalizations for substance use disorders,¹ and as a result, hospitalists commonly diagnose and manage alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the inpatient medical setting. The 2020 guidelines of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) provide updated recommendations for the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of patients hospitalized with AWS, which we have condensed to emphasize key changes from the last update² and clarify ongoing areas of uncertainty. 

Diagnosis

Recommendation 1. All inpatients who have used alcohol recently or regularly should be risk-stratified for AWS, regardless of whether or not they have suggestive symptoms (recommendations I.3, I.4, I.5, II.10). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-(Piccinelli) Consumption (AUDIT-PC) identifies patients at risk for AWS, and the Prediction of Alcohol Withdrawal Severity Scale (PAWSS) identifies those at risk for severe or complicated AWS, which includes seizures and alcohol withdrawal delirium (formerly delirium tremens). The guideline emphasizes use of these tools rather than simply initiating Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol, revised (CIWA-Ar) monitoring on all such patients to diagnose AWS, as CIWA-Ar was developed for monitoring response to treatment, not diagnosis (recommendation I.6). 

Treating Mild/Moderate or Uncomplicated AWS

Recommendation 2. Because of their proven track record of reducing the incidence of seizure and alcohol withdrawal delirium, benzodiazepines remain the recommended first-line therapy (recommendations V.13, V.16). Symptom-triggered administration of benzodiazepines (via CIWA-Ar) is recommended over fixed-dose administration because the former is associated with shorter length of stay and lower cumulative benzodiazepine administration^3,4 (recommendation V.23). Patients with mild AWS who are at low risk for severe or complicated withdrawal should be monitored for up to 36 hours for the development of worsening symptoms (recommendation V.1). For patients with high CIWA-Ar scores or who are at increased risk for severe or complicated AWS, frequent administration of moderate to high doses of a long-acting benzodiazepine early in AWS treatment (a practice called frontloading) is recommended to quickly control symptoms and prevent clinical worsening. This approach has been shown to reduce the incidence of seizures and alcohol withdrawal delirium (recommendations V.14, V.19, V.24).

Carbamazepine or gabapentin may be used in mild or moderate AWS if benzodiazepines are contraindicated; however, neither agent is recommended as first-line therapy because a clear reduction in seizure and withdrawal delirium has not been established (recommendation V.16). Alpha-2 agonists (eg, clonidine, dexmedetomidine) may be used to treat persistent autonomic hyperactivity or anxiety when these are not adequately controlled by benzodiazepines alone (recommendation V.36).

Treating Severe or Complicated AWS

Recommendation 3. The guideline defines severe AWS as withdrawal with severe signs and symptoms, and complicated AWS as withdrawal accompanied by seizures or delirium (Appendix Table⁵). The development of complications warrants prompt treatment. Patients who experience seizure should receive a fast-acting benzodiazepine (eg, intravenous [IV] diazepam or lorazepam) (recommendation VI.4). Patients with withdrawal delirium should receive a benzodiazepine (preferably parenterally) dosed to achieve light sedation. Clinicians should be prepared for the possibility that large doses may be required and to monitor patients for oversedation and respiratory depression (recommendations VI.13, VI.17). Antipsychotics may be used as adjuncts when withdrawal delirium or other symptoms, such as hallucinosis, are not adequately controlled by benzodiazepines alone, but should not be used as monotherapy (recommendation VI.20). The guideline emphasizes that alpha-2 agonists should not be used to treat withdrawal delirium (recommendation VI.21), but they may be used as adjuncts for resistant alcohol withdrawal in the intensive care unit (ICU) (recommendations VI.27, VI.29). Phenobarbital is an acceptable alternative to benzodiazepines for severe withdrawal (recommendation V.17); however, the guideline recommends that clinicians should be experienced in its use.

Treating Wernicke Encephalopathy

Recommendation 4. Thiamine should be administered to prevent Wernicke encephalopathy (WE), with parenteral formulations recommended in patients with malnutrition, severe/complicated withdrawal, or requiring ICU-level care (recommendations V.7, V.8). In particular, all patients admitted to an ICU for AWS should receive thiamine, as diagnosis of WE is often difficult in this population. Although there is no consensus on the required dose of thiamine to treat WE, 100 mg IV or intramuscularly (IM) daily for 3 to 5 days is commonly administered (recommendation V.7). Because of a lack of evidence of harm, thiamine may be given before, after, or concurrently with glucose or dextrose (recommendation V.7). The guideline does not make a specific recommendation regarding how to risk-stratify patients for WE.

Treating Underlying Alcohol Use Disorder 

Recommendation 5. Hospitalization for AWS is an important opportunity to engage patients in treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD), including pharmacotherapy and connection with outpatient providers (recommendation V.12). The guideline emphasizes that treatment for AUD should be initiated concomitantly with AWS management whenever possible but does not make recommendations regarding specific pharmacotherapies.

This guideline was authored by a committee of emergency medicine physicians, psychiatrists, and internists using the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense guidelines and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to combine the scientific literature with expert opinion. The result is a series of recommendations for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists that are not rated by strength; an assessment of the quality of the supporting evidence is available in an appendix. Four of the nine guideline committee members reported significant financial relationships with industry and other entities relevant to these guidelines.

Despite concern about oversedation from phenobarbital raised in small case series,⁶ observational studies comparing phenobarbital with benzodiazepines suggest phenobarbital has similar efficacy for treating AWS and that oversedation is rare.^7-9 Large randomized controlled trials in this area are lacking; however, at least one small randomized controlled trial¹⁰ among patients with AWS presenting to emergency departments supports the safety and efficacy of phenobarbital when used in combination with benzodiazepines. Given the growing body of evidence supporting the safety of phenobarbital, we believe a stronger recommendation for use in patients presenting with alcohol withdrawal delirium or treatment-resistant alcohol withdrawal is warranted. The guidelines also suggest that only “experienced clinicians” use phenobarbital for AWS, which may suppress appropriate use. Nationally, phenobarbital use for AWS remains low.¹¹Finally, although the guideline recommends initiation of treatment for AUD, specific recommendations for pharmacotherapy are not provided. Three medications currently have approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of AUD: acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram. Large randomized controlled trials support the safety and efficacy of acamprosate and naltrexone, with or without counselling, in the treatment of AUD,¹² and disulfiram may be appropriate for selected highly motivated patients. We believe more specific recommendations to assist in choosing among these options would be useful.

More data are needed on the safety and efficacy of phenobarbital in patients with AWS, as well as comparative effectiveness against benzodiazepines. Recruitment is ongoing for a single clinical trial comparing the effect of phenobarbital and lorazepam on length of stay among patients in the ICU with AWS (NCT04156464); to date, no randomized trials of phenobarbital have been conducted in medical inpatients with AWS. In addition, gaps in the literature exist regarding benzodiazepine selection, and head-to-head comparisons of symptom-triggered usage of different benzodiazepines are lacking.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” which outlined his world-shaking theory of evolution and its core principle of natural selection caused by environmental pressures that may determine whether an organism adapts and survives, or remains static, languishes, and eventually dies out.

The same forces that have influenced the size and shape of the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands, the length of giraffe necks in Africa, and the intestinal microbiomes of the nearly 8 billion human inhabitants of this planet also control whether malignant cells thrive and multiply, wither and die when assaulted by chemotherapy, or go into hiding, mutating and waiting for their next opportunity to erupt again and metastasize.

The ability of malignant cells to adapt to environmental pressures is “cancer’s most lethal and sophisticated property,” said Damon R. Reed, MD, program leader of the adolescent/young adult program at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Reed and colleagues are developing methods to meet cancer on its own terms, applying evolutionary principles to the treatment of childhood fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma in an innovative, and some would say audacious, clinical trial.

Adaptive versus conventional therapy

The trial, now recruiting, is designed to evaluate each of four different strategies for chemotherapy schedules in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma.

The trial contains four arms, three of which consist of either conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, moving a second-line therapy to the first line, or adding maintenance therapy, all of which have the goal of inducing as many complete remissions as possible.

The remaining adaptive therapy arm, however, is entirely novel in approach, with therapy using a combination of chemotherapy drugs that will be started and interrupted based on tumor responses, with resumption of therapy on an adaptive schedule unique to each patient. The goal of treatment for patients enrolled in this arm will be prolongation of the time to disease progression, rather than complete remission.

Although some people might consider the adaptive therapy approach to be sacrificing the hope for a cure in exchange for palliation, the hard truth is that patients with fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma (in contrast to those with fusion-negative disease) have a dismal prognosis following relapse after up-front intensified therapy.

Instead, because a cure is exceedingly unlikely in patients with metastatic disease, the conventional idea of delivering the maximum tolerated dose of chemotherapy until disease progression could be replaced by an approach based on understanding of the evolution of cancer cells under selective pressures, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

“Although adaptive therapy would represent a major paradigm shift in pediatric oncology, this approach would exploit the chemotherapy-sensitive population to prevent the emergence of resistant populations, optimizing tumor control with less toxicity,” they wrote in a commentary published online in the journal Cancer.¹

Poor survival with advanced disease

Childhood rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a form of soft tissue sarcoma of mesenchymal origin. Approximately 25% of cases are parameningeal, arising from sites adjacent to the meninges of the nasopharynx, middle ear, paranasal sinuses, orbit, and other regions of the head and neck. Approximately 31% of cases arise in the genitourinary tract and 13% in the extremities, and other tumors occur less commonly in the trunk, chest wall, perineal/anal region, and abdomen.

The overall 5-year survival rate is approximately 71%.¹

However, for patients with high-risk disease, a group that includes children 10 years of age or older with widespread disease with or without an activating PAX/FOX01 gene fusion, 5-year survival ranges from just 20% to 30% (Cancer Facts & Figures 2020).

“Among patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear difference in overall survival between those who have fusion-positive disease, where the 5-year overall survival is about 19%, and patients with fusion-negative disease,” said Douglas S. Hawkins, MD, chair of the children’s oncology group and professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and associate chief in the division of hematology/oncology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Patients with fusion-negative disease can be further classified into those with multiple metastatic sites, with a 5-year overall survival rate of approximately 45%, and those with a single metastatic site, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 70%, he said in an interview.

“So when we talk about metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, there actually is a diversity of outcomes, between really bad – those with fusion-positive disease – and not terrible – not great, but not terrible – for a selected group of patients with fusion-negative disease,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The poor prognosis for patients with metastatic fusion-positive disease prompted Dr. Reed and colleagues to rethink the entire approach to advanced cancers.

“If someone has a sarcoma, we know that we need to do surgery and radiation to the area, we know that localized disease does better than metastatic disease, and we generally hit it with some kind of chemotherapy that we call ‘standard of care,’ ” he said in an interview.

This approach is largely effective in some forms of cancer of bone and soft tissues, such as Ewing sarcoma, he notes, which has 5-year survival rates below 20% when treated with surgery and radiation only, but with the addition of chemotherapy has 5-year overall survival rates as high as 80%.

“At other times, with other sarcomas, the cure rate is abysmal, but we still call it standard of care,” Dr. Reed said.

For example, patients with metastatic fusion-positive RMS may have an initial response to chemotherapy, but most will eventually experience relapse and die of the disease.

“With some of the most common treatments, 70% of patients will have their cancers shrink by more than 50%, which is a major response, but the vast majority of them will have a recurrence later on,” Dr. Hawkins said.

He noted that the standard of care for patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, both with and without the PAX/FOX01 fusion, is chemotherapy, generally with the VAC regimen (vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide), although other agents such as doxorubicin, ifosfamide, etoposide, or irinotecan have also been tried, with little effect on event-free survival or overall survival rates.

A life too brief

Ricky Huff and his family know the course that the disease can take only too well. In 2015, his 5-month-old son, Theo, was diagnosed with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma and put under the care of Damon Reed at Moffitt.

“During the whole course of treatment – I’m sure like many other parents – apart from relying on Damon and his treatment expertise to try to determine the best treatment options, I was reading everything under the sun to try to get a working knowledge of what Theo was up against, what his treatment and clinical trial options were, and what was the state of the science,” Mr. Huff says.

Unfortunately, the characteristics of Theo’s disease, including his very young age at onset and diagnosis of stage 4 metastatic disease, conspired against him, and despite undergoing 14 months of chemotherapy, Theo died of the disease in October 2016, 5 months shy of what would have been his second birthday.

In their grief, Mr. Huff, a real estate lawyer with a practice in Clearwater, Fla., and his wife, Leah, were determined to help other families of children with cancer and settled on the National Pediatric Cancer Foundation. Mr. Huff joined the board of directors of the foundation, which is collaborating with Moffitt Cancer Center on the adaptive therapy trial.

An evolutionary primer (cancer edition)

To get a better idea of just how adaptive therapy works, it is helpful to view cancer cells through the lens of species development, adaptation, extinction, and evolution.

“Cancer cells compete against each other in a dynamic environment. Their tumor ecosystems exhibit spatial and temporal fluctuations in blood-borne nutrients, oxygen, growth factors, immune cells, and hormones,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote.

These influences can affect genetically identical cancer cells, which may begin to diverge from one another depending on their location in a tumor and the availability of nutrients, which in turn can result in two once-identical cells exhibiting different transcription rates for growth factors.

“Ultimately, this may affect the rate of progression through the cell cycle, leading to distinct rates of proliferation and mutational acquisition,” they wrote.

The diverging subpopulations will begin to develop different methods for adapting to the tumor microenvironment, with unique strategies for both accelerating growth and avoiding hazards such as chemotherapy drugs or radiation, the investigators explained.

“By the time a cancer becomes clinically apparent, cancer cells have transformed from a single clone into a diverse community of cell types evolving in response to a spatially and temporally heterogeneous tumor environment. Theoretically, a 10-gram cancer may contain the same order of magnitude of cancer cells as there are humans on earth, with tremendous diversity of phenotypes and environments,” they wrote.

Survival of the fittest

The competition of individuals within and between species described by Darwin also applies to cancer cells, in their interactions both with each other and with stromal cells and immune cells resulting in “the progressive replacement of less fit phenotypes by those that are more fit,” Dr. Reed and colleagues explained.

And just like the old joke about two hikers trying to escape from a charging grizzly bear (one says, “This is futile – we can’t outrun a grizzly,” and the other says, “I only have to outrun you!”), cancer cells only need to be more resistant to therapeutic attack than normal cells that are critical to function.

“This may explain why initial responses in certain solid tumors (notably rhabdomyosarcoma) do not predict eventual survival. The sensitivities of the dominant cancer cell populations dictate the initial response, but it is the ecology and evolution of the rare and more resistant populations that determine cure or relapse,” they wrote.

The endangered species list

As with many types of cancer, the current approach to treating pediatric sarcomas with curative intent is with a “first strike” approach, treating patients with surgery, radiation, and cytotoxic chemotherapy at the maximum tolerated dose for as long as needed or until unacceptable toxicities occur, with the intention of wiping out all cancer cells without permanently injuring normal cells.

The evolutionary analogy to this approach is a mass extinction event such as the meteor strike that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 66 million years ago. Fossil evidence suggests that the cataclysmic event resulted in the atmosphere being blanketed with dust particles that blocked sunlight and caused massive die-off of plants that dinosaurs needed to survive and were ill-adapted to do without.

In contrast, populations of smaller, more adaptable species of microbes, insects, and animals, including our mammalian ancestors, were able to survive and eventually flourish.

Many patients with localized cancers may be cured with up-front therapy, but others will have residual disease from populations of cells that are intrinsically resistant to therapy or have developed new evasion strategies.

Strike two and the MVP

Dr. Reed and colleagues liken the approach of second-line therapy for treatment of relapsed or refractory disease to the concept of “background extinctions,” using the fate of the passenger pigeon as an example of how a second-strike therapeutic strategy works.

Although the popular conception is that the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction by humans, the species in fact died out because of many different factors, including loss of habitat, isolation of populations leading to a loss of genetic diversity, and disruption of breeding habits.

“Once first strikes of deforestation and hunting reduced the birds to small, fragmented populations, a series of what would otherwise have been minor second strikes pushed the passenger pigeon below its extinction threshold, or minimum viable population,” they said.

The analogy, as it applies to cancer therapy, is the use of second-line or follow-on therapy with one or more agents that the residual cells are at least in theory not resistant to. In the case of fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma, the drug most commonly added in the second-strike approach is vinorelbine.²

“Second strikes should be timed to occur around the time when the first strike has achieved its greatest effect, presumably at the point when the disease becomes clinically undetectable or at a measurable nadir,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote. “Ideally, second-strike therapies should have modes of action that require different resistance strategies by the cancer cells than those needed for resistance to the first strike.”

Adaptive therapy

As Dr. Reed and colleagues note, despite optimal therapy, 94% of patients with metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma will experience a relapse within 3 years of diagnosis.1 Clearly the scorched earth or “throw everything you have it” approach no longer works, and that’s where adaptive therapy comes in.

Here again, the authors rely on nature, or rather human interaction with nature, to devise a strategy for keeping the disease at bay when extinction of all cancerous cells cannot be achieved.

They cite the example of agricultural integrated pest management, which seeks to keep harmful insects in check by treating them to suppress but not completely destroy a population, then stopping the use of pesticides, and resuming only when the insect population spikes and again becomes a threat to crops.

“The goal is to limit crop damage while retaining the sensitivity of the insects to the pesticides. Resistance most often comes at a cost. In the absence of the pesticide, sensitive individuals will outcompete resistant individuals,” they wrote.

Adaptive therapy uses the same approach to reduce selection pressures that foster resistance, with patients treated only until a specific, predetermined response is achieved in the dominant population of chemosensitive cells. The treatment is then interrupted and reintroduced only when the tumor rebounds to a certain predetermined size.

In this scenario, cells that retain sensitivity to chemotherapy will be able to reproduce and proliferate more rapidly than drug-resistant cells, and the therapy can then be reintroduced. This strategy is less likely to cause the development and proliferation of resistant cells than conventional intensified chemotherapy, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

Putting it to the test

The clinical trial that Dr. Reed and colleagues have initiated, officially titled “Evolutionary Inspired Therapy for Newly Diagnosed, Metastatic, Fusion Positive Rhabdomyosarcoma,” (NCT04388839) contains four arms: three experimental and one active comparator arm.

“We won’t randomize; we don’t feel that it would be fair to randomize patients, because these arms are so different from each other,” Dr. Reed said.

Arm A is the experimental first-strike arm, a 42-week course containing cyclophosphamide delivered intravenously over 60 minutes at a dose ranging from 220 mg to 1200 mg, vinorelbine delivered in an IV push over 6-10 minutes with a dose ranging from 4 mg to 25 mg, and actinomycin D administered via IV over 3-5 minutes at a dose ranging from 0.025 mg to 0.04 mg.

“The idea is that we take the standard of care, and we add a drug – vinorelbine – to make it stronger,” Dr. Reed said. “The idea is that the resistant cell, the cell that escapes, if we start hitting it on day 1 with vinorelbine, we might be able to drive it to extinction.”

Arm B, the second experimental arm, is the second-strike and maintenance arm, in which patients will receive conventional doses of vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) until complete response (CR) for 12-42 weeks, and will then be switched to up to 2 years of maintenance with vinorelbine and oral cyclophosphamide.

“Vinorelbine will be added when the cancer is declining or first goes into remission. We try not to wait 42 weeks, which is too long we think, by which time the cancer may be fully adapted and resistant,” he explained.

Arm C is the adaptive therapy arm, in which patients will receive VAC that starts and stops based on response, with the goal of prolonging time to disease progression rather than achieving CR.

Arm D is the active comparator arm, consisting of conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, such as VAC for 42 weeks, or other standard-of-care regimens that may include irinotecan, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and/or etoposide.

A change in thinking

Dr. Reed acknowledges that Arm C, the adaptive therapy arm, “definitely represents a change in thinking for pediatric oncology.”

“The idea is that if you could do this perfectly well, you would be able to take a patient who is diagnosed today and essentially ‘pause’ their disease for a while. Then 5 years from now, if there is a better medicine, you would have gotten that patient to that medicine.”

The optimal approach to treating metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma may be similar to that used for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with induction, consolidation, and maintenance and the option of delayed intensification, he said.

“But we’re so far away from knowing which series to do that we just need to show that any series – any changing it up – is helpful.”

Dr. Reed said that when he started presenting the concept of adaptive therapy in clinical meetings in 2017, “I was told to come up with a better idea. There were several people who instantly got it, but most people would instantly get angry.”

The common refrain was that adaptive therapy was “giving up.”

But minds began to change in 2018, following presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology of a European study showing that adding 6 months of low-dose chemotherapy maintenance to standard therapy improved the 5-year overall survival rate of pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma from 73.7% to 86.6%.2

Before presenting the idea of adaptive therapy to his colleagues, he ran it by the parents of children with advanced sarcomas, and many were on board with it, he said.

Ricky Huff said that had the option of adaptive therapy been available for Theo, he and his wife would have been willing to try it.

“Of course, everyone has the ability in hindsight to apply critical thinking to decisions that you made or could have made,” he said. “I think is true for many parents, who if they’re presented with information about options will say ‘well if there’s a 1 percent chance, I want that chance for my child, especially for a 5-month-old.”

The decision to choose adaptive therapy is a difficult decision to make, whether for oneself or for one’s son, because it isn’t curative.

“My wife and I have since had a conversation about this, and I do think we would have considered it, although through a lot of difficult conversations,” he said.

“After we got the pathology, knowing that it was metastatic, fusion-positive, and given his age, just doing a brief literature review on my own, I knew what we were up against using 20-year-old treatments, and that the chance of a cure was very, very small.”

If parents of children with metastatic, poor-prognosis rhabdomyosarcoma could be made to understand that adaptive therapy would entail shorter and fewer hospital stays, and cumulatively less toxic chemotherapy, and could prolong the lives of their children, the option might be more acceptable, he said.

And as Dr. Reed mentioned, prolonging time to progression offers hope of additional therapies to come.

“The whole time that my son was being treated, I hoped that there was going to be something else that came out, that a new trial would be launched because they found a way to drug a mutation, or treat it with immunotherapy – something that was going to give us a better option.”

Asked whether he would be willing to share his experiences in this article, Mr. Huff said that “I am willing to, in whatever small way I can, make an impact, and hopefully save another family from what we experienced.”

References

1. Reed DR et al. Cancer. 2020 Jun 1;126(11):2577-87 2. Bisogno G et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:18_suppl,LBA-2

In 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” which outlined his world-shaking theory of evolution and its core principle of natural selection caused by environmental pressures that may determine whether an organism adapts and survives, or remains static, languishes, and eventually dies out.

The same forces that have influenced the size and shape of the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands, the length of giraffe necks in Africa, and the intestinal microbiomes of the nearly 8 billion human inhabitants of this planet also control whether malignant cells thrive and multiply, wither and die when assaulted by chemotherapy, or go into hiding, mutating and waiting for their next opportunity to erupt again and metastasize.

The ability of malignant cells to adapt to environmental pressures is “cancer’s most lethal and sophisticated property,” said Damon R. Reed, MD, program leader of the adolescent/young adult program at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Reed and colleagues are developing methods to meet cancer on its own terms, applying evolutionary principles to the treatment of childhood fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma in an innovative, and some would say audacious, clinical trial.

Adaptive versus conventional therapy

The trial, now recruiting, is designed to evaluate each of four different strategies for chemotherapy schedules in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma.

The trial contains four arms, three of which consist of either conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, moving a second-line therapy to the first line, or adding maintenance therapy, all of which have the goal of inducing as many complete remissions as possible.

The remaining adaptive therapy arm, however, is entirely novel in approach, with therapy using a combination of chemotherapy drugs that will be started and interrupted based on tumor responses, with resumption of therapy on an adaptive schedule unique to each patient. The goal of treatment for patients enrolled in this arm will be prolongation of the time to disease progression, rather than complete remission.

Although some people might consider the adaptive therapy approach to be sacrificing the hope for a cure in exchange for palliation, the hard truth is that patients with fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma (in contrast to those with fusion-negative disease) have a dismal prognosis following relapse after up-front intensified therapy.

Instead, because a cure is exceedingly unlikely in patients with metastatic disease, the conventional idea of delivering the maximum tolerated dose of chemotherapy until disease progression could be replaced by an approach based on understanding of the evolution of cancer cells under selective pressures, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

“Although adaptive therapy would represent a major paradigm shift in pediatric oncology, this approach would exploit the chemotherapy-sensitive population to prevent the emergence of resistant populations, optimizing tumor control with less toxicity,” they wrote in a commentary published online in the journal Cancer.¹

Poor survival with advanced disease

Childhood rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a form of soft tissue sarcoma of mesenchymal origin. Approximately 25% of cases are parameningeal, arising from sites adjacent to the meninges of the nasopharynx, middle ear, paranasal sinuses, orbit, and other regions of the head and neck. Approximately 31% of cases arise in the genitourinary tract and 13% in the extremities, and other tumors occur less commonly in the trunk, chest wall, perineal/anal region, and abdomen.

The overall 5-year survival rate is approximately 71%.¹

However, for patients with high-risk disease, a group that includes children 10 years of age or older with widespread disease with or without an activating PAX/FOX01 gene fusion, 5-year survival ranges from just 20% to 30% (Cancer Facts & Figures 2020).

“Among patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear difference in overall survival between those who have fusion-positive disease, where the 5-year overall survival is about 19%, and patients with fusion-negative disease,” said Douglas S. Hawkins, MD, chair of the children’s oncology group and professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and associate chief in the division of hematology/oncology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Patients with fusion-negative disease can be further classified into those with multiple metastatic sites, with a 5-year overall survival rate of approximately 45%, and those with a single metastatic site, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 70%, he said in an interview.

“So when we talk about metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, there actually is a diversity of outcomes, between really bad – those with fusion-positive disease – and not terrible – not great, but not terrible – for a selected group of patients with fusion-negative disease,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The poor prognosis for patients with metastatic fusion-positive disease prompted Dr. Reed and colleagues to rethink the entire approach to advanced cancers.

“If someone has a sarcoma, we know that we need to do surgery and radiation to the area, we know that localized disease does better than metastatic disease, and we generally hit it with some kind of chemotherapy that we call ‘standard of care,’ ” he said in an interview.

This approach is largely effective in some forms of cancer of bone and soft tissues, such as Ewing sarcoma, he notes, which has 5-year survival rates below 20% when treated with surgery and radiation only, but with the addition of chemotherapy has 5-year overall survival rates as high as 80%.

“At other times, with other sarcomas, the cure rate is abysmal, but we still call it standard of care,” Dr. Reed said.

For example, patients with metastatic fusion-positive RMS may have an initial response to chemotherapy, but most will eventually experience relapse and die of the disease.

“With some of the most common treatments, 70% of patients will have their cancers shrink by more than 50%, which is a major response, but the vast majority of them will have a recurrence later on,” Dr. Hawkins said.

He noted that the standard of care for patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, both with and without the PAX/FOX01 fusion, is chemotherapy, generally with the VAC regimen (vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide), although other agents such as doxorubicin, ifosfamide, etoposide, or irinotecan have also been tried, with little effect on event-free survival or overall survival rates.

A life too brief

Ricky Huff and his family know the course that the disease can take only too well. In 2015, his 5-month-old son, Theo, was diagnosed with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma and put under the care of Damon Reed at Moffitt.

“During the whole course of treatment – I’m sure like many other parents – apart from relying on Damon and his treatment expertise to try to determine the best treatment options, I was reading everything under the sun to try to get a working knowledge of what Theo was up against, what his treatment and clinical trial options were, and what was the state of the science,” Mr. Huff says.

Unfortunately, the characteristics of Theo’s disease, including his very young age at onset and diagnosis of stage 4 metastatic disease, conspired against him, and despite undergoing 14 months of chemotherapy, Theo died of the disease in October 2016, 5 months shy of what would have been his second birthday.

In their grief, Mr. Huff, a real estate lawyer with a practice in Clearwater, Fla., and his wife, Leah, were determined to help other families of children with cancer and settled on the National Pediatric Cancer Foundation. Mr. Huff joined the board of directors of the foundation, which is collaborating with Moffitt Cancer Center on the adaptive therapy trial.

An evolutionary primer (cancer edition)

To get a better idea of just how adaptive therapy works, it is helpful to view cancer cells through the lens of species development, adaptation, extinction, and evolution.

“Cancer cells compete against each other in a dynamic environment. Their tumor ecosystems exhibit spatial and temporal fluctuations in blood-borne nutrients, oxygen, growth factors, immune cells, and hormones,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote.

These influences can affect genetically identical cancer cells, which may begin to diverge from one another depending on their location in a tumor and the availability of nutrients, which in turn can result in two once-identical cells exhibiting different transcription rates for growth factors.

“Ultimately, this may affect the rate of progression through the cell cycle, leading to distinct rates of proliferation and mutational acquisition,” they wrote.

The diverging subpopulations will begin to develop different methods for adapting to the tumor microenvironment, with unique strategies for both accelerating growth and avoiding hazards such as chemotherapy drugs or radiation, the investigators explained.

“By the time a cancer becomes clinically apparent, cancer cells have transformed from a single clone into a diverse community of cell types evolving in response to a spatially and temporally heterogeneous tumor environment. Theoretically, a 10-gram cancer may contain the same order of magnitude of cancer cells as there are humans on earth, with tremendous diversity of phenotypes and environments,” they wrote.

Survival of the fittest

The competition of individuals within and between species described by Darwin also applies to cancer cells, in their interactions both with each other and with stromal cells and immune cells resulting in “the progressive replacement of less fit phenotypes by those that are more fit,” Dr. Reed and colleagues explained.

And just like the old joke about two hikers trying to escape from a charging grizzly bear (one says, “This is futile – we can’t outrun a grizzly,” and the other says, “I only have to outrun you!”), cancer cells only need to be more resistant to therapeutic attack than normal cells that are critical to function.

“This may explain why initial responses in certain solid tumors (notably rhabdomyosarcoma) do not predict eventual survival. The sensitivities of the dominant cancer cell populations dictate the initial response, but it is the ecology and evolution of the rare and more resistant populations that determine cure or relapse,” they wrote.

The endangered species list

As with many types of cancer, the current approach to treating pediatric sarcomas with curative intent is with a “first strike” approach, treating patients with surgery, radiation, and cytotoxic chemotherapy at the maximum tolerated dose for as long as needed or until unacceptable toxicities occur, with the intention of wiping out all cancer cells without permanently injuring normal cells.

The evolutionary analogy to this approach is a mass extinction event such as the meteor strike that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 66 million years ago. Fossil evidence suggests that the cataclysmic event resulted in the atmosphere being blanketed with dust particles that blocked sunlight and caused massive die-off of plants that dinosaurs needed to survive and were ill-adapted to do without.

In contrast, populations of smaller, more adaptable species of microbes, insects, and animals, including our mammalian ancestors, were able to survive and eventually flourish.

Many patients with localized cancers may be cured with up-front therapy, but others will have residual disease from populations of cells that are intrinsically resistant to therapy or have developed new evasion strategies.

Strike two and the MVP

Dr. Reed and colleagues liken the approach of second-line therapy for treatment of relapsed or refractory disease to the concept of “background extinctions,” using the fate of the passenger pigeon as an example of how a second-strike therapeutic strategy works.

Although the popular conception is that the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction by humans, the species in fact died out because of many different factors, including loss of habitat, isolation of populations leading to a loss of genetic diversity, and disruption of breeding habits.

“Once first strikes of deforestation and hunting reduced the birds to small, fragmented populations, a series of what would otherwise have been minor second strikes pushed the passenger pigeon below its extinction threshold, or minimum viable population,” they said.

The analogy, as it applies to cancer therapy, is the use of second-line or follow-on therapy with one or more agents that the residual cells are at least in theory not resistant to. In the case of fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma, the drug most commonly added in the second-strike approach is vinorelbine.²

“Second strikes should be timed to occur around the time when the first strike has achieved its greatest effect, presumably at the point when the disease becomes clinically undetectable or at a measurable nadir,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote. “Ideally, second-strike therapies should have modes of action that require different resistance strategies by the cancer cells than those needed for resistance to the first strike.”

Adaptive therapy

As Dr. Reed and colleagues note, despite optimal therapy, 94% of patients with metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma will experience a relapse within 3 years of diagnosis.1 Clearly the scorched earth or “throw everything you have it” approach no longer works, and that’s where adaptive therapy comes in.

Here again, the authors rely on nature, or rather human interaction with nature, to devise a strategy for keeping the disease at bay when extinction of all cancerous cells cannot be achieved.

They cite the example of agricultural integrated pest management, which seeks to keep harmful insects in check by treating them to suppress but not completely destroy a population, then stopping the use of pesticides, and resuming only when the insect population spikes and again becomes a threat to crops.

“The goal is to limit crop damage while retaining the sensitivity of the insects to the pesticides. Resistance most often comes at a cost. In the absence of the pesticide, sensitive individuals will outcompete resistant individuals,” they wrote.

Adaptive therapy uses the same approach to reduce selection pressures that foster resistance, with patients treated only until a specific, predetermined response is achieved in the dominant population of chemosensitive cells. The treatment is then interrupted and reintroduced only when the tumor rebounds to a certain predetermined size.

In this scenario, cells that retain sensitivity to chemotherapy will be able to reproduce and proliferate more rapidly than drug-resistant cells, and the therapy can then be reintroduced. This strategy is less likely to cause the development and proliferation of resistant cells than conventional intensified chemotherapy, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

Putting it to the test

The clinical trial that Dr. Reed and colleagues have initiated, officially titled “Evolutionary Inspired Therapy for Newly Diagnosed, Metastatic, Fusion Positive Rhabdomyosarcoma,” (NCT04388839) contains four arms: three experimental and one active comparator arm.

“We won’t randomize; we don’t feel that it would be fair to randomize patients, because these arms are so different from each other,” Dr. Reed said.

Arm A is the experimental first-strike arm, a 42-week course containing cyclophosphamide delivered intravenously over 60 minutes at a dose ranging from 220 mg to 1200 mg, vinorelbine delivered in an IV push over 6-10 minutes with a dose ranging from 4 mg to 25 mg, and actinomycin D administered via IV over 3-5 minutes at a dose ranging from 0.025 mg to 0.04 mg.

“The idea is that we take the standard of care, and we add a drug – vinorelbine – to make it stronger,” Dr. Reed said. “The idea is that the resistant cell, the cell that escapes, if we start hitting it on day 1 with vinorelbine, we might be able to drive it to extinction.”

Arm B, the second experimental arm, is the second-strike and maintenance arm, in which patients will receive conventional doses of vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) until complete response (CR) for 12-42 weeks, and will then be switched to up to 2 years of maintenance with vinorelbine and oral cyclophosphamide.

“Vinorelbine will be added when the cancer is declining or first goes into remission. We try not to wait 42 weeks, which is too long we think, by which time the cancer may be fully adapted and resistant,” he explained.

Arm C is the adaptive therapy arm, in which patients will receive VAC that starts and stops based on response, with the goal of prolonging time to disease progression rather than achieving CR.

Arm D is the active comparator arm, consisting of conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, such as VAC for 42 weeks, or other standard-of-care regimens that may include irinotecan, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and/or etoposide.

A change in thinking

Dr. Reed acknowledges that Arm C, the adaptive therapy arm, “definitely represents a change in thinking for pediatric oncology.”

“The idea is that if you could do this perfectly well, you would be able to take a patient who is diagnosed today and essentially ‘pause’ their disease for a while. Then 5 years from now, if there is a better medicine, you would have gotten that patient to that medicine.”

The optimal approach to treating metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma may be similar to that used for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with induction, consolidation, and maintenance and the option of delayed intensification, he said.

“But we’re so far away from knowing which series to do that we just need to show that any series – any changing it up – is helpful.”

Dr. Reed said that when he started presenting the concept of adaptive therapy in clinical meetings in 2017, “I was told to come up with a better idea. There were several people who instantly got it, but most people would instantly get angry.”

The common refrain was that adaptive therapy was “giving up.”

But minds began to change in 2018, following presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology of a European study showing that adding 6 months of low-dose chemotherapy maintenance to standard therapy improved the 5-year overall survival rate of pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma from 73.7% to 86.6%.2

Before presenting the idea of adaptive therapy to his colleagues, he ran it by the parents of children with advanced sarcomas, and many were on board with it, he said.

Ricky Huff said that had the option of adaptive therapy been available for Theo, he and his wife would have been willing to try it.

“Of course, everyone has the ability in hindsight to apply critical thinking to decisions that you made or could have made,” he said. “I think is true for many parents, who if they’re presented with information about options will say ‘well if there’s a 1 percent chance, I want that chance for my child, especially for a 5-month-old.”

The decision to choose adaptive therapy is a difficult decision to make, whether for oneself or for one’s son, because it isn’t curative.

“My wife and I have since had a conversation about this, and I do think we would have considered it, although through a lot of difficult conversations,” he said.

“After we got the pathology, knowing that it was metastatic, fusion-positive, and given his age, just doing a brief literature review on my own, I knew what we were up against using 20-year-old treatments, and that the chance of a cure was very, very small.”

If parents of children with metastatic, poor-prognosis rhabdomyosarcoma could be made to understand that adaptive therapy would entail shorter and fewer hospital stays, and cumulatively less toxic chemotherapy, and could prolong the lives of their children, the option might be more acceptable, he said.

And as Dr. Reed mentioned, prolonging time to progression offers hope of additional therapies to come.

“The whole time that my son was being treated, I hoped that there was going to be something else that came out, that a new trial would be launched because they found a way to drug a mutation, or treat it with immunotherapy – something that was going to give us a better option.”

Asked whether he would be willing to share his experiences in this article, Mr. Huff said that “I am willing to, in whatever small way I can, make an impact, and hopefully save another family from what we experienced.”

References

1. Reed DR et al. Cancer. 2020 Jun 1;126(11):2577-87 2. Bisogno G et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:18_suppl,LBA-2

In 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” which outlined his world-shaking theory of evolution and its core principle of natural selection caused by environmental pressures that may determine whether an organism adapts and survives, or remains static, languishes, and eventually dies out.

The same forces that have influenced the size and shape of the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands, the length of giraffe necks in Africa, and the intestinal microbiomes of the nearly 8 billion human inhabitants of this planet also control whether malignant cells thrive and multiply, wither and die when assaulted by chemotherapy, or go into hiding, mutating and waiting for their next opportunity to erupt again and metastasize.

The ability of malignant cells to adapt to environmental pressures is “cancer’s most lethal and sophisticated property,” said Damon R. Reed, MD, program leader of the adolescent/young adult program at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Reed and colleagues are developing methods to meet cancer on its own terms, applying evolutionary principles to the treatment of childhood fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma in an innovative, and some would say audacious, clinical trial.

Adaptive versus conventional therapy

The trial, now recruiting, is designed to evaluate each of four different strategies for chemotherapy schedules in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma.

The trial contains four arms, three of which consist of either conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, moving a second-line therapy to the first line, or adding maintenance therapy, all of which have the goal of inducing as many complete remissions as possible.

The remaining adaptive therapy arm, however, is entirely novel in approach, with therapy using a combination of chemotherapy drugs that will be started and interrupted based on tumor responses, with resumption of therapy on an adaptive schedule unique to each patient. The goal of treatment for patients enrolled in this arm will be prolongation of the time to disease progression, rather than complete remission.

Although some people might consider the adaptive therapy approach to be sacrificing the hope for a cure in exchange for palliation, the hard truth is that patients with fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma (in contrast to those with fusion-negative disease) have a dismal prognosis following relapse after up-front intensified therapy.

Instead, because a cure is exceedingly unlikely in patients with metastatic disease, the conventional idea of delivering the maximum tolerated dose of chemotherapy until disease progression could be replaced by an approach based on understanding of the evolution of cancer cells under selective pressures, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

“Although adaptive therapy would represent a major paradigm shift in pediatric oncology, this approach would exploit the chemotherapy-sensitive population to prevent the emergence of resistant populations, optimizing tumor control with less toxicity,” they wrote in a commentary published online in the journal Cancer.¹

Poor survival with advanced disease

Childhood rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a form of soft tissue sarcoma of mesenchymal origin. Approximately 25% of cases are parameningeal, arising from sites adjacent to the meninges of the nasopharynx, middle ear, paranasal sinuses, orbit, and other regions of the head and neck. Approximately 31% of cases arise in the genitourinary tract and 13% in the extremities, and other tumors occur less commonly in the trunk, chest wall, perineal/anal region, and abdomen.

The overall 5-year survival rate is approximately 71%.¹

However, for patients with high-risk disease, a group that includes children 10 years of age or older with widespread disease with or without an activating PAX/FOX01 gene fusion, 5-year survival ranges from just 20% to 30% (Cancer Facts & Figures 2020).

“Among patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear difference in overall survival between those who have fusion-positive disease, where the 5-year overall survival is about 19%, and patients with fusion-negative disease,” said Douglas S. Hawkins, MD, chair of the children’s oncology group and professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and associate chief in the division of hematology/oncology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Patients with fusion-negative disease can be further classified into those with multiple metastatic sites, with a 5-year overall survival rate of approximately 45%, and those with a single metastatic site, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 70%, he said in an interview.

“So when we talk about metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, there actually is a diversity of outcomes, between really bad – those with fusion-positive disease – and not terrible – not great, but not terrible – for a selected group of patients with fusion-negative disease,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The poor prognosis for patients with metastatic fusion-positive disease prompted Dr. Reed and colleagues to rethink the entire approach to advanced cancers.

“If someone has a sarcoma, we know that we need to do surgery and radiation to the area, we know that localized disease does better than metastatic disease, and we generally hit it with some kind of chemotherapy that we call ‘standard of care,’ ” he said in an interview.

This approach is largely effective in some forms of cancer of bone and soft tissues, such as Ewing sarcoma, he notes, which has 5-year survival rates below 20% when treated with surgery and radiation only, but with the addition of chemotherapy has 5-year overall survival rates as high as 80%.

“At other times, with other sarcomas, the cure rate is abysmal, but we still call it standard of care,” Dr. Reed said.

For example, patients with metastatic fusion-positive RMS may have an initial response to chemotherapy, but most will eventually experience relapse and die of the disease.

“With some of the most common treatments, 70% of patients will have their cancers shrink by more than 50%, which is a major response, but the vast majority of them will have a recurrence later on,” Dr. Hawkins said.

He noted that the standard of care for patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, both with and without the PAX/FOX01 fusion, is chemotherapy, generally with the VAC regimen (vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide), although other agents such as doxorubicin, ifosfamide, etoposide, or irinotecan have also been tried, with little effect on event-free survival or overall survival rates.

A life too brief

Ricky Huff and his family know the course that the disease can take only too well. In 2015, his 5-month-old son, Theo, was diagnosed with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma and put under the care of Damon Reed at Moffitt.

“During the whole course of treatment – I’m sure like many other parents – apart from relying on Damon and his treatment expertise to try to determine the best treatment options, I was reading everything under the sun to try to get a working knowledge of what Theo was up against, what his treatment and clinical trial options were, and what was the state of the science,” Mr. Huff says.

Unfortunately, the characteristics of Theo’s disease, including his very young age at onset and diagnosis of stage 4 metastatic disease, conspired against him, and despite undergoing 14 months of chemotherapy, Theo died of the disease in October 2016, 5 months shy of what would have been his second birthday.

In their grief, Mr. Huff, a real estate lawyer with a practice in Clearwater, Fla., and his wife, Leah, were determined to help other families of children with cancer and settled on the National Pediatric Cancer Foundation. Mr. Huff joined the board of directors of the foundation, which is collaborating with Moffitt Cancer Center on the adaptive therapy trial.

An evolutionary primer (cancer edition)

To get a better idea of just how adaptive therapy works, it is helpful to view cancer cells through the lens of species development, adaptation, extinction, and evolution.

“Cancer cells compete against each other in a dynamic environment. Their tumor ecosystems exhibit spatial and temporal fluctuations in blood-borne nutrients, oxygen, growth factors, immune cells, and hormones,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote.

These influences can affect genetically identical cancer cells, which may begin to diverge from one another depending on their location in a tumor and the availability of nutrients, which in turn can result in two once-identical cells exhibiting different transcription rates for growth factors.

“Ultimately, this may affect the rate of progression through the cell cycle, leading to distinct rates of proliferation and mutational acquisition,” they wrote.

The diverging subpopulations will begin to develop different methods for adapting to the tumor microenvironment, with unique strategies for both accelerating growth and avoiding hazards such as chemotherapy drugs or radiation, the investigators explained.

“By the time a cancer becomes clinically apparent, cancer cells have transformed from a single clone into a diverse community of cell types evolving in response to a spatially and temporally heterogeneous tumor environment. Theoretically, a 10-gram cancer may contain the same order of magnitude of cancer cells as there are humans on earth, with tremendous diversity of phenotypes and environments,” they wrote.

Survival of the fittest

The competition of individuals within and between species described by Darwin also applies to cancer cells, in their interactions both with each other and with stromal cells and immune cells resulting in “the progressive replacement of less fit phenotypes by those that are more fit,” Dr. Reed and colleagues explained.

And just like the old joke about two hikers trying to escape from a charging grizzly bear (one says, “This is futile – we can’t outrun a grizzly,” and the other says, “I only have to outrun you!”), cancer cells only need to be more resistant to therapeutic attack than normal cells that are critical to function.

“This may explain why initial responses in certain solid tumors (notably rhabdomyosarcoma) do not predict eventual survival. The sensitivities of the dominant cancer cell populations dictate the initial response, but it is the ecology and evolution of the rare and more resistant populations that determine cure or relapse,” they wrote.

The endangered species list

As with many types of cancer, the current approach to treating pediatric sarcomas with curative intent is with a “first strike” approach, treating patients with surgery, radiation, and cytotoxic chemotherapy at the maximum tolerated dose for as long as needed or until unacceptable toxicities occur, with the intention of wiping out all cancer cells without permanently injuring normal cells.

The evolutionary analogy to this approach is a mass extinction event such as the meteor strike that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 66 million years ago. Fossil evidence suggests that the cataclysmic event resulted in the atmosphere being blanketed with dust particles that blocked sunlight and caused massive die-off of plants that dinosaurs needed to survive and were ill-adapted to do without.

In contrast, populations of smaller, more adaptable species of microbes, insects, and animals, including our mammalian ancestors, were able to survive and eventually flourish.

Many patients with localized cancers may be cured with up-front therapy, but others will have residual disease from populations of cells that are intrinsically resistant to therapy or have developed new evasion strategies.

Strike two and the MVP

Dr. Reed and colleagues liken the approach of second-line therapy for treatment of relapsed or refractory disease to the concept of “background extinctions,” using the fate of the passenger pigeon as an example of how a second-strike therapeutic strategy works.

Although the popular conception is that the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction by humans, the species in fact died out because of many different factors, including loss of habitat, isolation of populations leading to a loss of genetic diversity, and disruption of breeding habits.

“Once first strikes of deforestation and hunting reduced the birds to small, fragmented populations, a series of what would otherwise have been minor second strikes pushed the passenger pigeon below its extinction threshold, or minimum viable population,” they said.

The analogy, as it applies to cancer therapy, is the use of second-line or follow-on therapy with one or more agents that the residual cells are at least in theory not resistant to. In the case of fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma, the drug most commonly added in the second-strike approach is vinorelbine.²

“Second strikes should be timed to occur around the time when the first strike has achieved its greatest effect, presumably at the point when the disease becomes clinically undetectable or at a measurable nadir,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote. “Ideally, second-strike therapies should have modes of action that require different resistance strategies by the cancer cells than those needed for resistance to the first strike.”

Adaptive therapy

As Dr. Reed and colleagues note, despite optimal therapy, 94% of patients with metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma will experience a relapse within 3 years of diagnosis.1 Clearly the scorched earth or “throw everything you have it” approach no longer works, and that’s where adaptive therapy comes in.

Here again, the authors rely on nature, or rather human interaction with nature, to devise a strategy for keeping the disease at bay when extinction of all cancerous cells cannot be achieved.

They cite the example of agricultural integrated pest management, which seeks to keep harmful insects in check by treating them to suppress but not completely destroy a population, then stopping the use of pesticides, and resuming only when the insect population spikes and again becomes a threat to crops.

“The goal is to limit crop damage while retaining the sensitivity of the insects to the pesticides. Resistance most often comes at a cost. In the absence of the pesticide, sensitive individuals will outcompete resistant individuals,” they wrote.

Adaptive therapy uses the same approach to reduce selection pressures that foster resistance, with patients treated only until a specific, predetermined response is achieved in the dominant population of chemosensitive cells. The treatment is then interrupted and reintroduced only when the tumor rebounds to a certain predetermined size.

In this scenario, cells that retain sensitivity to chemotherapy will be able to reproduce and proliferate more rapidly than drug-resistant cells, and the therapy can then be reintroduced. This strategy is less likely to cause the development and proliferation of resistant cells than conventional intensified chemotherapy, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

Putting it to the test

The clinical trial that Dr. Reed and colleagues have initiated, officially titled “Evolutionary Inspired Therapy for Newly Diagnosed, Metastatic, Fusion Positive Rhabdomyosarcoma,” (NCT04388839) contains four arms: three experimental and one active comparator arm.

“We won’t randomize; we don’t feel that it would be fair to randomize patients, because these arms are so different from each other,” Dr. Reed said.

Arm A is the experimental first-strike arm, a 42-week course containing cyclophosphamide delivered intravenously over 60 minutes at a dose ranging from 220 mg to 1200 mg, vinorelbine delivered in an IV push over 6-10 minutes with a dose ranging from 4 mg to 25 mg, and actinomycin D administered via IV over 3-5 minutes at a dose ranging from 0.025 mg to 0.04 mg.

“The idea is that we take the standard of care, and we add a drug – vinorelbine – to make it stronger,” Dr. Reed said. “The idea is that the resistant cell, the cell that escapes, if we start hitting it on day 1 with vinorelbine, we might be able to drive it to extinction.”

Arm B, the second experimental arm, is the second-strike and maintenance arm, in which patients will receive conventional doses of vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) until complete response (CR) for 12-42 weeks, and will then be switched to up to 2 years of maintenance with vinorelbine and oral cyclophosphamide.

“Vinorelbine will be added when the cancer is declining or first goes into remission. We try not to wait 42 weeks, which is too long we think, by which time the cancer may be fully adapted and resistant,” he explained.

Arm C is the adaptive therapy arm, in which patients will receive VAC that starts and stops based on response, with the goal of prolonging time to disease progression rather than achieving CR.

Arm D is the active comparator arm, consisting of conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, such as VAC for 42 weeks, or other standard-of-care regimens that may include irinotecan, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and/or etoposide.

A change in thinking

Dr. Reed acknowledges that Arm C, the adaptive therapy arm, “definitely represents a change in thinking for pediatric oncology.”

“The idea is that if you could do this perfectly well, you would be able to take a patient who is diagnosed today and essentially ‘pause’ their disease for a while. Then 5 years from now, if there is a better medicine, you would have gotten that patient to that medicine.”

The optimal approach to treating metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma may be similar to that used for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with induction, consolidation, and maintenance and the option of delayed intensification, he said.

“But we’re so far away from knowing which series to do that we just need to show that any series – any changing it up – is helpful.”

Dr. Reed said that when he started presenting the concept of adaptive therapy in clinical meetings in 2017, “I was told to come up with a better idea. There were several people who instantly got it, but most people would instantly get angry.”

The common refrain was that adaptive therapy was “giving up.”

But minds began to change in 2018, following presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology of a European study showing that adding 6 months of low-dose chemotherapy maintenance to standard therapy improved the 5-year overall survival rate of pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma from 73.7% to 86.6%.2

Before presenting the idea of adaptive therapy to his colleagues, he ran it by the parents of children with advanced sarcomas, and many were on board with it, he said.

Ricky Huff said that had the option of adaptive therapy been available for Theo, he and his wife would have been willing to try it.

“Of course, everyone has the ability in hindsight to apply critical thinking to decisions that you made or could have made,” he said. “I think is true for many parents, who if they’re presented with information about options will say ‘well if there’s a 1 percent chance, I want that chance for my child, especially for a 5-month-old.”

The decision to choose adaptive therapy is a difficult decision to make, whether for oneself or for one’s son, because it isn’t curative.

“My wife and I have since had a conversation about this, and I do think we would have considered it, although through a lot of difficult conversations,” he said.

“After we got the pathology, knowing that it was metastatic, fusion-positive, and given his age, just doing a brief literature review on my own, I knew what we were up against using 20-year-old treatments, and that the chance of a cure was very, very small.”

If parents of children with metastatic, poor-prognosis rhabdomyosarcoma could be made to understand that adaptive therapy would entail shorter and fewer hospital stays, and cumulatively less toxic chemotherapy, and could prolong the lives of their children, the option might be more acceptable, he said.

And as Dr. Reed mentioned, prolonging time to progression offers hope of additional therapies to come.

“The whole time that my son was being treated, I hoped that there was going to be something else that came out, that a new trial would be launched because they found a way to drug a mutation, or treat it with immunotherapy – something that was going to give us a better option.”

Asked whether he would be willing to share his experiences in this article, Mr. Huff said that “I am willing to, in whatever small way I can, make an impact, and hopefully save another family from what we experienced.”

References

1. Reed DR et al. Cancer. 2020 Jun 1;126(11):2577-87 2. Bisogno G et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:18_suppl,LBA-2

In multiple myeloma, survival has been very significantly improved by immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and CD38-targeting antibodies. Despite these advances, multiple myeloma, which is characterized by malignant proliferation of clonal plasma cells in bone marrow, remains an incurable plasma cell disorder with near-certain relapse after successful treatment. Prognosis for patients who develop triple-class refractory disease is poor, with less than 1-year survival. The substantial unmet therapeutic need extends further to other poor survival multiple myeloma populations that include newly diagnosed patients with high cytogenic risk profiles and those with early relapse after first-line therapy. For all of these, interest in drugs with novel mechanisms of action is naturally high.

More specific, less toxic

Post allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation and donor lymphocyte infusion sustained remissions reflect a graft-versus-myeloma effect mediated by donor T cells.¹ The substantial morbidity and mortality associated with graft-versus-host disease and opportunistic infections, however, have spurred searches for alternative, more specific, and less toxic T-cell therapies with stronger antitumor activity.

Chimeric antigen receptors (CARs)

In CAR T-cell therapies for multiple myeloma, autologous T cells are harvested from the patient and reprogrammed to target multiple myeloma cells through the introduction of genes that encode CARs, which are fusion proteins coupling an antigen-recognition moiety and a transmembrane-spanning element to a T-cell activation domain (typically CD3 zeta [CD247]). The T cells are then expanded and reinfused to the patient following a lymphodepletion regimen. Five strategies using autologous CAR T cells are currently approved for diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and other hematologic malignancies. Notably, in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, CAR T cells have demonstrated impressive activity.

BCMA-targeting CAR T cells

The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA; TNFRSF17), which plays an important role in the survival of long-lived plasma cells in bone marrow, is an attractive target for CAR T-cell therapy because it is expressed on normal and malignant plasma cell surfaces and by mature B cells. When ligands (TNFSF 13B/TNFSF13) bind to BCMA expressed on multiple myeloma cell surfaces, survival and proliferation pathways and drug resistance are activated.

High-quality responses have been demonstrated in several trials of anti-BCMA CAR T cells, which kill multiple myeloma cell lines and primary multiple myeloma cells through degranulation of T cells and lysis of tumor cells, even those with low BCMA expression. Based on efficacy in triple-class exposed multiple myeloma that compared favorably to conventional care with improved health-related quality of life, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave breakthrough designation to ciltacabtagene autoleucel in December 2019 and approval for idecabtagene vicleucel in March 2021.

Idecabtagene vicleucel

Idecabtagene vicleucel expresses a murine BCMA-targeting single-chain variable fragment with a 4-1BB costimulatory motif. The phase 2 KarMMa study² evaluated idecabtagene vicleucel (target dose of 450 × 10⁶ CAR T cells; range 150 × 10⁶ to 450 × 10⁶) activity in 128 patients with triple-class exposed multiple myeloma. Partial responses or better were observed in 94 of 128 patients (73%) (95% confidence interval, 66-81); 42 (33%) had a complete response or better (95% CI, 25-41), with a median progression-free survival of 8.8 months (95% CI, 5.6-11.6). Outcomes were improved in the highest fixed-dose group, with partial response or better in 81% (44 of 55), complete response or better in 39% (21), and median overall survival of 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.8-12.3). Patients with high-risk cytogenetic profiles, extramedullary disease, and high tumor burden also had deep and durable responses. Outcomes were less favorable in patients with revised International Staging System stage 3 disease.

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel, a 4-1BB–based CAR T-cell therapy with two BCMA-targeting domains, confers high-avidity binding. In the phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 study, conducted in the United States and Europe, preliminary results in 97 patients showed a 97% response rate with ciltacabtagene autoleucel (target dose 0.75 × 10⁶ CAR T cells per kg), and in 65 patients, a complete response (67%). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 77% (95% CI, 66-84) and overall survival was 89% (95% CI, 80-94).³

Evan Oto/Science Source

In the phase 1 LEGEND-2 study⁴ that was conducted at four sites in China among less heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patients, while all used the same CAR construct, sites used variable conditioning regimens (split versus single). In the site using cyclophosphamide as the lymphodepletion therapy and three split CAR T-cell infusions, partial response or better was achieved in 50 patients (88%) with a median of three prior therapy lines. The complete response rate was high (74%) and minimal residual disease negativity was reached in 39 patients (68%). Median progression-free survival was 19.9 months (95% CI, 9.6-31.0), but 28.2 months among those with complete responses (95% CI, 19.9-not estimable). Median overall survival was also favorable at 36.1 months (95% CI, 26.4-not estimable); it was 35.0 months-not estimable among patients with complete responses. Results from the other three sites were comparable.

Noteworthy among other BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell products in earlier stages of clinical development is orvacabtagene autoleucel, which has a fully human BCMA-specific binding domain. At higher doses (300 × 10⁶ to 600 × 10⁶ CAR T cells) among 62 patients with triple-class–exposed multiple myeloma in the EVOLVE trial, 92% had a partial or better response, with complete responses or better in 36%, all with an encouraging safety profile.

BCMA-targeting CAR T cell toxicity

While van de Donk, Usmani, and Yong, in their review¹ note a lack of evidence of off-target toxicity with BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell therapy in clinical studies so far, they do point to several clinical syndromes (cytokine release syndrome, infections, respiratory failure, neurotoxicity, pulmonary aspergillosis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage) caused by cytokines produced during CAR T-cell expansion and to cytopenias and infections arising from prior treatment, bridging therapy, and lymphodepleting conditioning. Deaths attributed to treatment in the above-mentioned trials underscore the need for careful monitoring and early intervention.

Cytokine release syndrome

In the BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell therapy studies, the frequency of cytokine release syndrome varies widely from 17% to 95% but is generally attributed to CAR T-cell activation and is associated with increased serum ferritin concentrations, high c-reactive proteins, and proinflammatory cytokines. High tumor load, in multiple myeloma patients receiving CD19-targeting CAR T cells, was associated with a higher incidence of severe cytokine release syndrome. In a small number of patients, macrophage activation syndrome and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, the most aggressive variants of cytokine release syndrome, are caused by severe immune activation and lead to multiorgan dysfunction.

Neurotoxicity

Immune effector cell–-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) symptoms, in multiple myeloma patients treated with BCMA-targeting CAR T cells, may include delirium, transient confusion, aphasia, lethargy, tremor, dysgraphia, seizures, cerebral edema, and rarely, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome.¹ While the pathophysiology of CAR T cell–related neurotoxicity is not well understood, high tumor load, higher peak concentrations of CAR T cells, and more severe cytokine release syndrome are more common in patients with severe neurotoxicity. “The frequency of neurotoxicities,” Dr. Yong noted in an interview, “has been reduced by steps taken to mitigate these risk factors.”

High interest in phase I study

A phase I study presented in Blood has attracted interest because the novel BCMA-targeting CAR agent (CT103A) being tested is fully human.⁴ In an accompanying editorial, Lee and Yong note that doubt for any real potential for durable CAR T therapy responses in multiple myeloma is raised by the poor persistence of multiple myeloma CAR T cells in multiple myeloma patients.³

www.scientifcannimations.com/Creative Commons 4.0

In the earliest trials of BCMA CARs, while reported rates of objective antimyeloma responses were in the approximately 33%-88% range among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), persistence was typically 6 months or less. Lee and Yong point out, however, that while correlation between persistence and duration of response (DOR) has been variable, median persistence was 308 days in the phase I study. Wang and colleagues, the phase I study authors, state that levels of CAR T-cell proliferation and duration of cellular persistence may be determinants of DOR in CAR T therapy for multiple myeloma. They observe that the multiple mechanisms potentially responsible for the inability of some CAR T cells to survive in vivo, may include antigen escape, T-cell intrinsic mechanisms, tumor microenvironment–mediated suppression, and host anti-CAR immunity. CARs with humanized or fully human single-chain variable fragments (scFvs), prior studies suggest, may retain antitumor activity through bypassing potential host anti-CAR immunogenicity.

In the study, CT103A, a fully human scFv, was tested in an open-label, single-arm design for safety and preliminary efficacy in 18 patients (8 female; median age 53.5 years) with RRMM (at least three lines of prior therapies including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent) who had undergone leukapheresis and had received lymphodepletion chemotherapy with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. Four patients (22.2%) had been treated previously with murine anti-BCMA CAR T cells. Safety and tolerability (including dose-limiting toxicity) were the primary endpoints, with efficacy and pharmacokinetics secondary.

Rapid responses

Two weeks after infusion, the overall response rate (ORR) was 77.8% (14 of 18) and by 1 month it was 88.9% (16 of 18). Eventually, all responded and 72.2% (13 of 18) achieved a complete response (CR) or stringent complete response (sCR). All 17 patients evaluated for minimum residual disease (MRD) in bone marrow were MRD-negative at 10-4 nucleated cells by flow cytometry within 1 month. Median DOR was 325 days (range, 7-573 days) for all patients and 412 days (range, 213-573 days) for the 13 with CR/sCR. CAR transgenes were detectable at the cutoff date in 77.8% of patients, with a median CAR transgene persistence of 307.5 days.

During follow-up, four deaths were reported, including one patient with persistent sCR (sudden severe infection). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 1 year were 58.3% and 75%, respectively. Extramedullary myeloma was associated with a shortened PFS (79.1% versus 20.0%, P = .015), but not OS (79.1% versus 60.0%, P = .328) at 1 year.

All patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events, most of which were expected hematologic effects of lymphodepleting chemotherapy and CT103A infusions. Grade 1 and 2 cytokine release syndromes occurred in 70.6% patients (17 of 18), with 1 grade 4 event (5.9%). The patients receiving a dose of up to 3.0 × 106 CAR+ T cells/kg required less treatment of cytokine release syndrome than the patients who received a dose of 6.0 × 106 CAR+ T cells/kg. No immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome was observed. Antidrug antibody positivity occurred in only 1 patient.

Two characteristics of CT103A may contribute to its long persistence, stated study senior author Jianfeng Zhou, MD, PhD, chairman and professor of the department of hematology, Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China. “One is the reduced immunogenicity achieved by the fully human construct; another is the relatively low binding affinity of the CAR binder. Notably, four patients who previously received murine BCMA CAR were included and still benefit from CT103A. It demonstrates the possibility of retreatment with a different CAR.” Dr. Zhou also emphasized that the lack of ICANS in the entire cohort reflects the excellent safety profile of CT103A.

The editorial commentary in Blood by Lydia Sarah Hui Lee, MD, and Kwee L. Yong, PhD, underscored impressive responses to CT103A, specifically to the median time to response of 15 days, the 100% ORR, and the not reached median progression-free survival at 394 days).⁵ The best results in other published nonhuman BCMA CAR T-cell trials, they note, were about 1 month (time to response), approximately 33%-88% (ORR), and median progression-free survival of 7-15 months.

Immune responses, Dr. Yong said in an interview, can guide subsequent treatment. “For example, if a patient previously exposed to BCMA CAR T cells in which the construct is either chimeric or humanized, but retains some murine elements, and had detectable antimurine antibodies, we may aim for a fully human one if we are considering treating with a different BCMA CAR T-cell product.” She added, “On the other hand, a similar patient whose serum did not contain such antibodies may be a candidate for a humanized product that retained some murine elements.”

Wang and colleagues concluded, “Altogether, CT103A is safe and highly active in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and can be developed as a promising therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.”⁴ An ongoing multicenter phase II trial with single-arm design is recruiting 100 patients. The infusion dosage, suggested by the phase I trial, is 1 × 10⁶ cells/kg. Endpoints include efficacy and safety.

Improving CAR T

Optimizing CAR design and adapting manufacturing processes to generate cell products enriched for T-cell subsets, such as early memory cells, are among strategies being explored to improve CAR T effectiveness.¹ Also, dual-antigen targeting to interdict antigen escape and rational combination treatments to enhance persistence are under investigation, along with efforts to improve CAR T-cell therapy safety (for example, incorporation of a suicide gene safety system). They note further that several groups are researching use of induced pluripotent stem cells to generate large quantities of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell immunotherapies that would circumvent the complex, costly, and time-consuming process of manufacturing patient-specific autologous CAR T cells.

References

1. van de Donk N et al. Lancet Haematol. 2021 June;8(6):e446-61.

2. Munshi NC et al. N Engl J Med 2021; 384:705-716.

3. Berdeja JG et al. The Lancet. 2021 July; 398:314-24.

4. Wang D et al. Blood. 2021 May;137(21):2890-901.

5. Lee L and Yong K. Blood. 2021 May;137(21):2859-60.

In multiple myeloma, survival has been very significantly improved by immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and CD38-targeting antibodies. Despite these advances, multiple myeloma, which is characterized by malignant proliferation of clonal plasma cells in bone marrow, remains an incurable plasma cell disorder with near-certain relapse after successful treatment. Prognosis for patients who develop triple-class refractory disease is poor, with less than 1-year survival. The substantial unmet therapeutic need extends further to other poor survival multiple myeloma populations that include newly diagnosed patients with high cytogenic risk profiles and those with early relapse after first-line therapy. For all of these, interest in drugs with novel mechanisms of action is naturally high.

More specific, less toxic

Post allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation and donor lymphocyte infusion sustained remissions reflect a graft-versus-myeloma effect mediated by donor T cells.¹ The substantial morbidity and mortality associated with graft-versus-host disease and opportunistic infections, however, have spurred searches for alternative, more specific, and less toxic T-cell therapies with stronger antitumor activity.

Chimeric antigen receptors (CARs)

In CAR T-cell therapies for multiple myeloma, autologous T cells are harvested from the patient and reprogrammed to target multiple myeloma cells through the introduction of genes that encode CARs, which are fusion proteins coupling an antigen-recognition moiety and a transmembrane-spanning element to a T-cell activation domain (typically CD3 zeta [CD247]). The T cells are then expanded and reinfused to the patient following a lymphodepletion regimen. Five strategies using autologous CAR T cells are currently approved for diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and other hematologic malignancies. Notably, in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, CAR T cells have demonstrated impressive activity.

BCMA-targeting CAR T cells

The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA; TNFRSF17), which plays an important role in the survival of long-lived plasma cells in bone marrow, is an attractive target for CAR T-cell therapy because it is expressed on normal and malignant plasma cell surfaces and by mature B cells. When ligands (TNFSF 13B/TNFSF13) bind to BCMA expressed on multiple myeloma cell surfaces, survival and proliferation pathways and drug resistance are activated.

High-quality responses have been demonstrated in several trials of anti-BCMA CAR T cells, which kill multiple myeloma cell lines and primary multiple myeloma cells through degranulation of T cells and lysis of tumor cells, even those with low BCMA expression. Based on efficacy in triple-class exposed multiple myeloma that compared favorably to conventional care with improved health-related quality of life, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave breakthrough designation to ciltacabtagene autoleucel in December 2019 and approval for idecabtagene vicleucel in March 2021.

Idecabtagene vicleucel

Idecabtagene vicleucel expresses a murine BCMA-targeting single-chain variable fragment with a 4-1BB costimulatory motif. The phase 2 KarMMa study² evaluated idecabtagene vicleucel (target dose of 450 × 10⁶ CAR T cells; range 150 × 10⁶ to 450 × 10⁶) activity in 128 patients with triple-class exposed multiple myeloma. Partial responses or better were observed in 94 of 128 patients (73%) (95% confidence interval, 66-81); 42 (33%) had a complete response or better (95% CI, 25-41), with a median progression-free survival of 8.8 months (95% CI, 5.6-11.6). Outcomes were improved in the highest fixed-dose group, with partial response or better in 81% (44 of 55), complete response or better in 39% (21), and median overall survival of 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.8-12.3). Patients with high-risk cytogenetic profiles, extramedullary disease, and high tumor burden also had deep and durable responses. Outcomes were less favorable in patients with revised International Staging System stage 3 disease.

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel, a 4-1BB–based CAR T-cell therapy with two BCMA-targeting domains, confers high-avidity binding. In the phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 study, conducted in the United States and Europe, preliminary results in 97 patients showed a 97% response rate with ciltacabtagene autoleucel (target dose 0.75 × 10⁶ CAR T cells per kg), and in 65 patients, a complete response (67%). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 77% (95% CI, 66-84) and overall survival was 89% (95% CI, 80-94).³

Evan Oto/Science Source

In the phase 1 LEGEND-2 study⁴ that was conducted at four sites in China among less heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patients, while all used the same CAR construct, sites used variable conditioning regimens (split versus single). In the site using cyclophosphamide as the lymphodepletion therapy and three split CAR T-cell infusions, partial response or better was achieved in 50 patients (88%) with a median of three prior therapy lines. The complete response rate was high (74%) and minimal residual disease negativity was reached in 39 patients (68%). Median progression-free survival was 19.9 months (95% CI, 9.6-31.0), but 28.2 months among those with complete responses (95% CI, 19.9-not estimable). Median overall survival was also favorable at 36.1 months (95% CI, 26.4-not estimable); it was 35.0 months-not estimable among patients with complete responses. Results from the other three sites were comparable.

Noteworthy among other BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell products in earlier stages of clinical development is orvacabtagene autoleucel, which has a fully human BCMA-specific binding domain. At higher doses (300 × 10⁶ to 600 × 10⁶ CAR T cells) among 62 patients with triple-class–exposed multiple myeloma in the EVOLVE trial, 92% had a partial or better response, with complete responses or better in 36%, all with an encouraging safety profile.

BCMA-targeting CAR T cell toxicity

While van de Donk, Usmani, and Yong, in their review¹ note a lack of evidence of off-target toxicity with BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell therapy in clinical studies so far, they do point to several clinical syndromes (cytokine release syndrome, infections, respiratory failure, neurotoxicity, pulmonary aspergillosis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage) caused by cytokines produced during CAR T-cell expansion and to cytopenias and infections arising from prior treatment, bridging therapy, and lymphodepleting conditioning. Deaths attributed to treatment in the above-mentioned trials underscore the need for careful monitoring and early intervention.

Cytokine release syndrome

In the BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell therapy studies, the frequency of cytokine release syndrome varies widely from 17% to 95% but is generally attributed to CAR T-cell activation and is associated with increased serum ferritin concentrations, high c-reactive proteins, and proinflammatory cytokines. High tumor load, in multiple myeloma patients receiving CD19-targeting CAR T cells, was associated with a higher incidence of severe cytokine release syndrome. In a small number of patients, macrophage activation syndrome and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, the most aggressive variants of cytokine release syndrome, are caused by severe immune activation and lead to multiorgan dysfunction.

Neurotoxicity

Immune effector cell–-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) symptoms, in multiple myeloma patients treated with BCMA-targeting CAR T cells, may include delirium, transient confusion, aphasia, lethargy, tremor, dysgraphia, seizures, cerebral edema, and rarely, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome.¹ While the pathophysiology of CAR T cell–related neurotoxicity is not well understood, high tumor load, higher peak concentrations of CAR T cells, and more severe cytokine release syndrome are more common in patients with severe neurotoxicity. “The frequency of neurotoxicities,” Dr. Yong noted in an interview, “has been reduced by steps taken to mitigate these risk factors.”

High interest in phase I study

A phase I study presented in Blood has attracted interest because the novel BCMA-targeting CAR agent (CT103A) being tested is fully human.⁴ In an accompanying editorial, Lee and Yong note that doubt for any real potential for durable CAR T therapy responses in multiple myeloma is raised by the poor persistence of multiple myeloma CAR T cells in multiple myeloma patients.³

www.scientifcannimations.com/Creative Commons 4.0

In the earliest trials of BCMA CARs, while reported rates of objective antimyeloma responses were in the approximately 33%-88% range among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), persistence was typically 6 months or less. Lee and Yong point out, however, that while correlation between persistence and duration of response (DOR) has been variable, median persistence was 308 days in the phase I study. Wang and colleagues, the phase I study authors, state that levels of CAR T-cell proliferation and duration of cellular persistence may be determinants of DOR in CAR T therapy for multiple myeloma. They observe that the multiple mechanisms potentially responsible for the inability of some CAR T cells to survive in vivo, may include antigen escape, T-cell intrinsic mechanisms, tumor microenvironment–mediated suppression, and host anti-CAR immunity. CARs with humanized or fully human single-chain variable fragments (scFvs), prior studies suggest, may retain antitumor activity through bypassing potential host anti-CAR immunogenicity.

In the study, CT103A, a fully human scFv, was tested in an open-label, single-arm design for safety and preliminary efficacy in 18 patients (8 female; median age 53.5 years) with RRMM (at least three lines of prior therapies including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent) who had undergone leukapheresis and had received lymphodepletion chemotherapy with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. Four patients (22.2%) had been treated previously with murine anti-BCMA CAR T cells. Safety and tolerability (including dose-limiting toxicity) were the primary endpoints, with efficacy and pharmacokinetics secondary.

Rapid responses

Two weeks after infusion, the overall response rate (ORR) was 77.8% (14 of 18) and by 1 month it was 88.9% (16 of 18). Eventually, all responded and 72.2% (13 of 18) achieved a complete response (CR) or stringent complete response (sCR). All 17 patients evaluated for minimum residual disease (MRD) in bone marrow were MRD-negative at 10-4 nucleated cells by flow cytometry within 1 month. Median DOR was 325 days (range, 7-573 days) for all patients and 412 days (range, 213-573 days) for the 13 with CR/sCR. CAR transgenes were detectable at the cutoff date in 77.8% of patients, with a median CAR transgene persistence of 307.5 days.

During follow-up, four deaths were reported, including one patient with persistent sCR (sudden severe infection). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 1 year were 58.3% and 75%, respectively. Extramedullary myeloma was associated with a shortened PFS (79.1% versus 20.0%, P = .015), but not OS (79.1% versus 60.0%, P = .328) at 1 year.

All patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events, most of which were expected hematologic effects of lymphodepleting chemotherapy and CT103A infusions. Grade 1 and 2 cytokine release syndromes occurred in 70.6% patients (17 of 18), with 1 grade 4 event (5.9%). The patients receiving a dose of up to 3.0 × 106 CAR+ T cells/kg required less treatment of cytokine release syndrome than the patients who received a dose of 6.0 × 106 CAR+ T cells/kg. No immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome was observed. Antidrug antibody positivity occurred in only 1 patient.

Two characteristics of CT103A may contribute to its long persistence, stated study senior author Jianfeng Zhou, MD, PhD, chairman and professor of the department of hematology, Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China. “One is the reduced immunogenicity achieved by the fully human construct; another is the relatively low binding affinity of the CAR binder. Notably, four patients who previously received murine BCMA CAR were included and still benefit from CT103A. It demonstrates the possibility of retreatment with a different CAR.” Dr. Zhou also emphasized that the lack of ICANS in the entire cohort reflects the excellent safety profile of CT103A.

The editorial commentary in Blood by Lydia Sarah Hui Lee, MD, and Kwee L. Yong, PhD, underscored impressive responses to CT103A, specifically to the median time to response of 15 days, the 100% ORR, and the not reached median progression-free survival at 394 days).⁵ The best results in other published nonhuman BCMA CAR T-cell trials, they note, were about 1 month (time to response), approximately 33%-88% (ORR), and median progression-free survival of 7-15 months.

Immune responses, Dr. Yong said in an interview, can guide subsequent treatment. “For example, if a patient previously exposed to BCMA CAR T cells in which the construct is either chimeric or humanized, but retains some murine elements, and had detectable antimurine antibodies, we may aim for a fully human one if we are considering treating with a different BCMA CAR T-cell product.” She added, “On the other hand, a similar patient whose serum did not contain such antibodies may be a candidate for a humanized product that retained some murine elements.”

Wang and colleagues concluded, “Altogether, CT103A is safe and highly active in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and can be developed as a promising therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.”⁴ An ongoing multicenter phase II trial with single-arm design is recruiting 100 patients. The infusion dosage, suggested by the phase I trial, is 1 × 10⁶ cells/kg. Endpoints include efficacy and safety.

Improving CAR T

Optimizing CAR design and adapting manufacturing processes to generate cell products enriched for T-cell subsets, such as early memory cells, are among strategies being explored to improve CAR T effectiveness.¹ Also, dual-antigen targeting to interdict antigen escape and rational combination treatments to enhance persistence are under investigation, along with efforts to improve CAR T-cell therapy safety (for example, incorporation of a suicide gene safety system). They note further that several groups are researching use of induced pluripotent stem cells to generate large quantities of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell immunotherapies that would circumvent the complex, costly, and time-consuming process of manufacturing patient-specific autologous CAR T cells.

References

1. van de Donk N et al. Lancet Haematol. 2021 June;8(6):e446-61.

2. Munshi NC et al. N Engl J Med 2021; 384:705-716.

3. Berdeja JG et al. The Lancet. 2021 July; 398:314-24.

4. Wang D et al. Blood. 2021 May;137(21):2890-901.

5. Lee L and Yong K. Blood. 2021 May;137(21):2859-60.

In multiple myeloma, survival has been very significantly improved by immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and CD38-targeting antibodies. Despite these advances, multiple myeloma, which is characterized by malignant proliferation of clonal plasma cells in bone marrow, remains an incurable plasma cell disorder with near-certain relapse after successful treatment. Prognosis for patients who develop triple-class refractory disease is poor, with less than 1-year survival. The substantial unmet therapeutic need extends further to other poor survival multiple myeloma populations that include newly diagnosed patients with high cytogenic risk profiles and those with early relapse after first-line therapy. For all of these, interest in drugs with novel mechanisms of action is naturally high.

More specific, less toxic

Post allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation and donor lymphocyte infusion sustained remissions reflect a graft-versus-myeloma effect mediated by donor T cells.¹ The substantial morbidity and mortality associated with graft-versus-host disease and opportunistic infections, however, have spurred searches for alternative, more specific, and less toxic T-cell therapies with stronger antitumor activity.

Chimeric antigen receptors (CARs)

In CAR T-cell therapies for multiple myeloma, autologous T cells are harvested from the patient and reprogrammed to target multiple myeloma cells through the introduction of genes that encode CARs, which are fusion proteins coupling an antigen-recognition moiety and a transmembrane-spanning element to a T-cell activation domain (typically CD3 zeta [CD247]). The T cells are then expanded and reinfused to the patient following a lymphodepletion regimen. Five strategies using autologous CAR T cells are currently approved for diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and other hematologic malignancies. Notably, in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, CAR T cells have demonstrated impressive activity.

BCMA-targeting CAR T cells

The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA; TNFRSF17), which plays an important role in the survival of long-lived plasma cells in bone marrow, is an attractive target for CAR T-cell therapy because it is expressed on normal and malignant plasma cell surfaces and by mature B cells. When ligands (TNFSF 13B/TNFSF13) bind to BCMA expressed on multiple myeloma cell surfaces, survival and proliferation pathways and drug resistance are activated.

High-quality responses have been demonstrated in several trials of anti-BCMA CAR T cells, which kill multiple myeloma cell lines and primary multiple myeloma cells through degranulation of T cells and lysis of tumor cells, even those with low BCMA expression. Based on efficacy in triple-class exposed multiple myeloma that compared favorably to conventional care with improved health-related quality of life, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave breakthrough designation to ciltacabtagene autoleucel in December 2019 and approval for idecabtagene vicleucel in March 2021.

Idecabtagene vicleucel

Idecabtagene vicleucel expresses a murine BCMA-targeting single-chain variable fragment with a 4-1BB costimulatory motif. The phase 2 KarMMa study² evaluated idecabtagene vicleucel (target dose of 450 × 10⁶ CAR T cells; range 150 × 10⁶ to 450 × 10⁶) activity in 128 patients with triple-class exposed multiple myeloma. Partial responses or better were observed in 94 of 128 patients (73%) (95% confidence interval, 66-81); 42 (33%) had a complete response or better (95% CI, 25-41), with a median progression-free survival of 8.8 months (95% CI, 5.6-11.6). Outcomes were improved in the highest fixed-dose group, with partial response or better in 81% (44 of 55), complete response or better in 39% (21), and median overall survival of 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.8-12.3). Patients with high-risk cytogenetic profiles, extramedullary disease, and high tumor burden also had deep and durable responses. Outcomes were less favorable in patients with revised International Staging System stage 3 disease.

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel, a 4-1BB–based CAR T-cell therapy with two BCMA-targeting domains, confers high-avidity binding. In the phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 study, conducted in the United States and Europe, preliminary results in 97 patients showed a 97% response rate with ciltacabtagene autoleucel (target dose 0.75 × 10⁶ CAR T cells per kg), and in 65 patients, a complete response (67%). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 77% (95% CI, 66-84) and overall survival was 89% (95% CI, 80-94).³

Evan Oto/Science Source

In the phase 1 LEGEND-2 study⁴ that was conducted at four sites in China among less heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patients, while all used the same CAR construct, sites used variable conditioning regimens (split versus single). In the site using cyclophosphamide as the lymphodepletion therapy and three split CAR T-cell infusions, partial response or better was achieved in 50 patients (88%) with a median of three prior therapy lines. The complete response rate was high (74%) and minimal residual disease negativity was reached in 39 patients (68%). Median progression-free survival was 19.9 months (95% CI, 9.6-31.0), but 28.2 months among those with complete responses (95% CI, 19.9-not estimable). Median overall survival was also favorable at 36.1 months (95% CI, 26.4-not estimable); it was 35.0 months-not estimable among patients with complete responses. Results from the other three sites were comparable.

Noteworthy among other BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell products in earlier stages of clinical development is orvacabtagene autoleucel, which has a fully human BCMA-specific binding domain. At higher doses (300 × 10⁶ to 600 × 10⁶ CAR T cells) among 62 patients with triple-class–exposed multiple myeloma in the EVOLVE trial, 92% had a partial or better response, with complete responses or better in 36%, all with an encouraging safety profile.

BCMA-targeting CAR T cell toxicity

While van de Donk, Usmani, and Yong, in their review¹ note a lack of evidence of off-target toxicity with BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell therapy in clinical studies so far, they do point to several clinical syndromes (cytokine release syndrome, infections, respiratory failure, neurotoxicity, pulmonary aspergillosis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage) caused by cytokines produced during CAR T-cell expansion and to cytopenias and infections arising from prior treatment, bridging therapy, and lymphodepleting conditioning. Deaths attributed to treatment in the above-mentioned trials underscore the need for careful monitoring and early intervention.

Cytokine release syndrome

In the BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell therapy studies, the frequency of cytokine release syndrome varies widely from 17% to 95% but is generally attributed to CAR T-cell activation and is associated with increased serum ferritin concentrations, high c-reactive proteins, and proinflammatory cytokines. High tumor load, in multiple myeloma patients receiving CD19-targeting CAR T cells, was associated with a higher incidence of severe cytokine release syndrome. In a small number of patients, macrophage activation syndrome and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, the most aggressive variants of cytokine release syndrome, are caused by severe immune activation and lead to multiorgan dysfunction.

Neurotoxicity

Immune effector cell–-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) symptoms, in multiple myeloma patients treated with BCMA-targeting CAR T cells, may include delirium, transient confusion, aphasia, lethargy, tremor, dysgraphia, seizures, cerebral edema, and rarely, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome.¹ While the pathophysiology of CAR T cell–related neurotoxicity is not well understood, high tumor load, higher peak concentrations of CAR T cells, and more severe cytokine release syndrome are more common in patients with severe neurotoxicity. “The frequency of neurotoxicities,” Dr. Yong noted in an interview, “has been reduced by steps taken to mitigate these risk factors.”

High interest in phase I study

A phase I study presented in Blood has attracted interest because the novel BCMA-targeting CAR agent (CT103A) being tested is fully human.⁴ In an accompanying editorial, Lee and Yong note that doubt for any real potential for durable CAR T therapy responses in multiple myeloma is raised by the poor persistence of multiple myeloma CAR T cells in multiple myeloma patients.³

www.scientifcannimations.com/Creative Commons 4.0

In the earliest trials of BCMA CARs, while reported rates of objective antimyeloma responses were in the approximately 33%-88% range among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), persistence was typically 6 months or less. Lee and Yong point out, however, that while correlation between persistence and duration of response (DOR) has been variable, median persistence was 308 days in the phase I study. Wang and colleagues, the phase I study authors, state that levels of CAR T-cell proliferation and duration of cellular persistence may be determinants of DOR in CAR T therapy for multiple myeloma. They observe that the multiple mechanisms potentially responsible for the inability of some CAR T cells to survive in vivo, may include antigen escape, T-cell intrinsic mechanisms, tumor microenvironment–mediated suppression, and host anti-CAR immunity. CARs with humanized or fully human single-chain variable fragments (scFvs), prior studies suggest, may retain antitumor activity through bypassing potential host anti-CAR immunogenicity.

In the study, CT103A, a fully human scFv, was tested in an open-label, single-arm design for safety and preliminary efficacy in 18 patients (8 female; median age 53.5 years) with RRMM (at least three lines of prior therapies including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent) who had undergone leukapheresis and had received lymphodepletion chemotherapy with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. Four patients (22.2%) had been treated previously with murine anti-BCMA CAR T cells. Safety and tolerability (including dose-limiting toxicity) were the primary endpoints, with efficacy and pharmacokinetics secondary.

Rapid responses

Two weeks after infusion, the overall response rate (ORR) was 77.8% (14 of 18) and by 1 month it was 88.9% (16 of 18). Eventually, all responded and 72.2% (13 of 18) achieved a complete response (CR) or stringent complete response (sCR). All 17 patients evaluated for minimum residual disease (MRD) in bone marrow were MRD-negative at 10-4 nucleated cells by flow cytometry within 1 month. Median DOR was 325 days (range, 7-573 days) for all patients and 412 days (range, 213-573 days) for the 13 with CR/sCR. CAR transgenes were detectable at the cutoff date in 77.8% of patients, with a median CAR transgene persistence of 307.5 days.

During follow-up, four deaths were reported, including one patient with persistent sCR (sudden severe infection). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 1 year were 58.3% and 75%, respectively. Extramedullary myeloma was associated with a shortened PFS (79.1% versus 20.0%, P = .015), but not OS (79.1% versus 60.0%, P = .328) at 1 year.

All patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events, most of which were expected hematologic effects of lymphodepleting chemotherapy and CT103A infusions. Grade 1 and 2 cytokine release syndromes occurred in 70.6% patients (17 of 18), with 1 grade 4 event (5.9%). The patients receiving a dose of up to 3.0 × 106 CAR+ T cells/kg required less treatment of cytokine release syndrome than the patients who received a dose of 6.0 × 106 CAR+ T cells/kg. No immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome was observed. Antidrug antibody positivity occurred in only 1 patient.

Two characteristics of CT103A may contribute to its long persistence, stated study senior author Jianfeng Zhou, MD, PhD, chairman and professor of the department of hematology, Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China. “One is the reduced immunogenicity achieved by the fully human construct; another is the relatively low binding affinity of the CAR binder. Notably, four patients who previously received murine BCMA CAR were included and still benefit from CT103A. It demonstrates the possibility of retreatment with a different CAR.” Dr. Zhou also emphasized that the lack of ICANS in the entire cohort reflects the excellent safety profile of CT103A.

The editorial commentary in Blood by Lydia Sarah Hui Lee, MD, and Kwee L. Yong, PhD, underscored impressive responses to CT103A, specifically to the median time to response of 15 days, the 100% ORR, and the not reached median progression-free survival at 394 days).⁵ The best results in other published nonhuman BCMA CAR T-cell trials, they note, were about 1 month (time to response), approximately 33%-88% (ORR), and median progression-free survival of 7-15 months.

Immune responses, Dr. Yong said in an interview, can guide subsequent treatment. “For example, if a patient previously exposed to BCMA CAR T cells in which the construct is either chimeric or humanized, but retains some murine elements, and had detectable antimurine antibodies, we may aim for a fully human one if we are considering treating with a different BCMA CAR T-cell product.” She added, “On the other hand, a similar patient whose serum did not contain such antibodies may be a candidate for a humanized product that retained some murine elements.”

Wang and colleagues concluded, “Altogether, CT103A is safe and highly active in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and can be developed as a promising therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.”⁴ An ongoing multicenter phase II trial with single-arm design is recruiting 100 patients. The infusion dosage, suggested by the phase I trial, is 1 × 10⁶ cells/kg. Endpoints include efficacy and safety.

Improving CAR T

Optimizing CAR design and adapting manufacturing processes to generate cell products enriched for T-cell subsets, such as early memory cells, are among strategies being explored to improve CAR T effectiveness.¹ Also, dual-antigen targeting to interdict antigen escape and rational combination treatments to enhance persistence are under investigation, along with efforts to improve CAR T-cell therapy safety (for example, incorporation of a suicide gene safety system). They note further that several groups are researching use of induced pluripotent stem cells to generate large quantities of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell immunotherapies that would circumvent the complex, costly, and time-consuming process of manufacturing patient-specific autologous CAR T cells.

References

1. van de Donk N et al. Lancet Haematol. 2021 June;8(6):e446-61.

2. Munshi NC et al. N Engl J Med 2021; 384:705-716.

3. Berdeja JG et al. The Lancet. 2021 July; 398:314-24.

4. Wang D et al. Blood. 2021 May;137(21):2890-901.

5. Lee L and Yong K. Blood. 2021 May;137(21):2859-60.

Pheochromocytoma is a rare catecholamine-secreting tumor of chromaffin cells of the adrenal medulla or sympathetic ganglia, occurring in about 0.2 to 0.5% of patients with hypertension.^1-3 However, in a review of 54 autopsy-proven cases of pheochromocytoma, about 50% of the patients with hypertension were not clinically suspected for pheochromocytoma.⁴

Pheochromocytoma is usually diagnosed based on symptoms of hyperadrenergic spells, resistant hypertension, especially in the young, with a pressor response to the anesthesia stress test and adrenal incidentaloma.

The classic triad of symptoms associated with pheochromocytoma includes episodic headache (90%), sweating (60-70%), and palpitations (70%).^2,5 Sustained or paroxysmal hypertension is the most common symptom reported in about 95% of patients with pheochromocytoma. Other symptoms include pallor, tremors, dyspnea, generalized weakness, orthostatic hypotension, cardiomyopathy, or hyperglycemia.⁶ However, about 10% of patients with pheochromocytoma are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Secondary causes of hypertension are usually suspected in multidrug resistant or sudden early onset of hypertension.⁸

Approximately 10% of catecholamine-secreting tumors are malignant.^9-11 Benign and malignant pheochromocytoma have a similar biochemical and histologic presentation and are differentiated based on local invasion into the surrounding tissues and organs (eg, kidney, liver) or distant metastasis.

A high index of suspicion is necessary during the workup of secondary hypertension as untreated pheochromocytoma may lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients who require surgical treatment.^4,12 Multiple cases of hypertensive crisis, pulmonary edema, cardiac arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock are reported in undiagnosed patients with pheochromocytoma undergoing both adrenal or nonadrenal surgery who were not medically prepared with α- and β-adrenergic antagonists and fluids before surgery.^13,14

A typical workup of a suspected patient with pheochromocytoma includes biochemical tests, including measurements of urinary and fractionated plasma metanephrines and catecholamine. Patients with positive biochemical tests should undergo localization of the tumor with an imaging study either with an adrenal/abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scan. If a patient has paraganglioma or an adrenal mass > 10 cm or negative abdominal imaging with a positive biochemical test, further imaging with an iobenguane I-123 scan is needed (Figure 1).

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male with a medical history of diabetes, hypertension, sensory neuropathy, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) status posttransurethral resection of the prostate, and chronic renal failure presented to establish care with the Arizona Kidney Disease and Hypertension Center. His medications included losartan 50 mg by mouth daily, diltiazem 180 mg extended-release by mouth daily, carvedilol 6.25 mg by mouth twice a day, and tamsulosin 0.4 mg by mouth daily. His presenting vitals were blood pressure (BP), 112/74 left arm sitting, pulse, 63/beats per min, and body mass index, 34. On physical examination, the patient was alert and oriented, and the chest was clear to auscultation without wheeze or rhonchi. On cardiac examination, heart rate and rhythm were regular; S1 and S2 were normal with no added murmurs, rubs or gallops, and no jugular venous distension. The abdomen was soft, nontender, with no palpable mass. His laboratory results showed sodium, 142 mmol/L; potassium, 5.3 mmol/L; chloride, 101 mmol/L; carbon dioxide, 24 mmol/L; albumin, 4.3 g/dL; creatinine, 1.89 mg/dL; blood urea nitrogen, 29 mg/dL; estimated glomerular filtration rate non-African American, 35 mL/min/1.73; 24-h urine creatinine clearance, 105 mL/min; protein, 1306 mg/24 h (Table).

His renal ultrasound showed an exophytic isoechoic mass or complex cyst at the lateral aspect of the lower pole of the right kidney, measuring 45 mm in diameter. An MRI of the abdomen with and without contrast showed a solid partially exophytic mass of the posterolateral interpolar cortex of the right kidney, measuring 5.9 cm in the greatest dimension (Figure 2). No definite involvement of Gerota fascia was noted, a 1-cm metastasis to the right adrenal gland was present, renal veins were patent, and there was no upper retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy.

Treatment and Follow-up

The patient underwent right-hand-assisted lap-aroscopic radical nephrectomy and right adre-nalectomy without any complications. However, the surgical pathology report showed oncocytoma of the kidney (5.7 cm), pheochromocytoma of the adrenal gland (1.4 cm), and papillary adenoma of the kidney (0.7 cm). Right kidney nephrectomy showed non-neoplastic renal parenchyma, diabetic glomerulosclerosis (Renal Pathology Society 2010 diabetic nephropathy class IIb), severe mesangial expansion, moderate interstitial fibrosis, moderate arteriosclerosis, and mild arteriolosclerosis.

A fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan was significant for right nephrectomy and adrenalectomy and showed no significant evidence of residual neoplasm or local or distant metastases. A nuclear medicine (iobenguane I-123) tumor and single positron emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan showed normal activity throughout the body and no evidence of abnormal activity (Figure 3).

Discussion

Pheochromocytoma is a rare cause of secondary hypertension. However, the real numbers are thought to be > 0.2 to 0.5%.^1,2,4 Patients with pheochromocytoma should undergo surgical adrenal resection after appropriate medical preparation. Patients with pheochromocytoma who are not diagnosed preoperatively have increased surgical mortality rates due to fatal hypertensive crises, malignant arrhythmia, and multiorgan failure as a result of hypertensive crisis.¹⁵ Anesthetic drugs during surgery also can exacerbate the cardiotoxic effects of catecholamines. Short-acting anesthetic agents, such as fentanyl, are used in patients with pheochromocytoma.¹⁶

This case of pheochromocytoma illustrated no classic symptoms of episodic headache, sweating, and tachycardia, and the patient was otherwise asymptomatic. BP was well controlled with losartan, diltiazem, and a β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol). As the patient was not known to have pheochromocytoma, he did not undergo preoperative medical therapy. Figure 4 illustrates the receptors stimulate catecholamines, and the drugs blocking these receptors prevent hypertensive crisis during surgery. However, the surgery was without potential complications (ie, hypertensive crisis, malignant arrhythmia, or multiorgan failure). The patient was diagnosed incidentally on histopathology after right radical nephrectomy and adrenalectomy due to solid partially exophytic right renal mass (5.9 cm) with right adrenal metastasis. About 10% of patients are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Sometimes, the symptoms may be ignored because of the episodic nature. Other possible reasons can be small, nonfunctional tumors or the use of antihypertensive medications suppressing the symptoms.⁷

The adrenal mass that was initially thought to be a metastasis of right kidney mass was later confirmed as pheochromocytoma. One possible explanation for uneventful surgery could be the use of β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol), α-1 adrenergic blocker (tamsulosin) along with nondihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (diltiazem) as part of the patient’s antihypertensive and BPH medication regimen. Another possible explanation could be silent or episodically secreting pheochromocytoma with a small functional portion.

Conclusions

Asymptomatic pheochromocytoma is an unusual but serious condition, especially for patients undergoing a surgical procedure. An adrenal mass may be ignored in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic older adult patients and is mostly considered as adrenal metastasis when present with other malignancies. Fortunately, the nephrectomy and adrenalectomy in our case of asymptomatic pheochromocytoma was uneventful, but pheochromocytoma should be ruled out before a surgical procedure, as an absence of medical pretreatment can lead to serious consequences. Therefore, we suggest a more careful screening of pheochromocytoma in patients with an adrenal mass (primary or metastatic) and hypertension treated with multiple antihypertensive drugs, even in older adult patients.

Pheochromocytoma is a rare catecholamine-secreting tumor of chromaffin cells of the adrenal medulla or sympathetic ganglia, occurring in about 0.2 to 0.5% of patients with hypertension.^1-3 However, in a review of 54 autopsy-proven cases of pheochromocytoma, about 50% of the patients with hypertension were not clinically suspected for pheochromocytoma.⁴

Pheochromocytoma is usually diagnosed based on symptoms of hyperadrenergic spells, resistant hypertension, especially in the young, with a pressor response to the anesthesia stress test and adrenal incidentaloma.

The classic triad of symptoms associated with pheochromocytoma includes episodic headache (90%), sweating (60-70%), and palpitations (70%).^2,5 Sustained or paroxysmal hypertension is the most common symptom reported in about 95% of patients with pheochromocytoma. Other symptoms include pallor, tremors, dyspnea, generalized weakness, orthostatic hypotension, cardiomyopathy, or hyperglycemia.⁶ However, about 10% of patients with pheochromocytoma are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Secondary causes of hypertension are usually suspected in multidrug resistant or sudden early onset of hypertension.⁸

Approximately 10% of catecholamine-secreting tumors are malignant.^9-11 Benign and malignant pheochromocytoma have a similar biochemical and histologic presentation and are differentiated based on local invasion into the surrounding tissues and organs (eg, kidney, liver) or distant metastasis.

A high index of suspicion is necessary during the workup of secondary hypertension as untreated pheochromocytoma may lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients who require surgical treatment.^4,12 Multiple cases of hypertensive crisis, pulmonary edema, cardiac arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock are reported in undiagnosed patients with pheochromocytoma undergoing both adrenal or nonadrenal surgery who were not medically prepared with α- and β-adrenergic antagonists and fluids before surgery.^13,14

A typical workup of a suspected patient with pheochromocytoma includes biochemical tests, including measurements of urinary and fractionated plasma metanephrines and catecholamine. Patients with positive biochemical tests should undergo localization of the tumor with an imaging study either with an adrenal/abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scan. If a patient has paraganglioma or an adrenal mass > 10 cm or negative abdominal imaging with a positive biochemical test, further imaging with an iobenguane I-123 scan is needed (Figure 1).

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male with a medical history of diabetes, hypertension, sensory neuropathy, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) status posttransurethral resection of the prostate, and chronic renal failure presented to establish care with the Arizona Kidney Disease and Hypertension Center. His medications included losartan 50 mg by mouth daily, diltiazem 180 mg extended-release by mouth daily, carvedilol 6.25 mg by mouth twice a day, and tamsulosin 0.4 mg by mouth daily. His presenting vitals were blood pressure (BP), 112/74 left arm sitting, pulse, 63/beats per min, and body mass index, 34. On physical examination, the patient was alert and oriented, and the chest was clear to auscultation without wheeze or rhonchi. On cardiac examination, heart rate and rhythm were regular; S1 and S2 were normal with no added murmurs, rubs or gallops, and no jugular venous distension. The abdomen was soft, nontender, with no palpable mass. His laboratory results showed sodium, 142 mmol/L; potassium, 5.3 mmol/L; chloride, 101 mmol/L; carbon dioxide, 24 mmol/L; albumin, 4.3 g/dL; creatinine, 1.89 mg/dL; blood urea nitrogen, 29 mg/dL; estimated glomerular filtration rate non-African American, 35 mL/min/1.73; 24-h urine creatinine clearance, 105 mL/min; protein, 1306 mg/24 h (Table).

His renal ultrasound showed an exophytic isoechoic mass or complex cyst at the lateral aspect of the lower pole of the right kidney, measuring 45 mm in diameter. An MRI of the abdomen with and without contrast showed a solid partially exophytic mass of the posterolateral interpolar cortex of the right kidney, measuring 5.9 cm in the greatest dimension (Figure 2). No definite involvement of Gerota fascia was noted, a 1-cm metastasis to the right adrenal gland was present, renal veins were patent, and there was no upper retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy.

Treatment and Follow-up

The patient underwent right-hand-assisted lap-aroscopic radical nephrectomy and right adre-nalectomy without any complications. However, the surgical pathology report showed oncocytoma of the kidney (5.7 cm), pheochromocytoma of the adrenal gland (1.4 cm), and papillary adenoma of the kidney (0.7 cm). Right kidney nephrectomy showed non-neoplastic renal parenchyma, diabetic glomerulosclerosis (Renal Pathology Society 2010 diabetic nephropathy class IIb), severe mesangial expansion, moderate interstitial fibrosis, moderate arteriosclerosis, and mild arteriolosclerosis.

A fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan was significant for right nephrectomy and adrenalectomy and showed no significant evidence of residual neoplasm or local or distant metastases. A nuclear medicine (iobenguane I-123) tumor and single positron emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan showed normal activity throughout the body and no evidence of abnormal activity (Figure 3).

Discussion

Pheochromocytoma is a rare cause of secondary hypertension. However, the real numbers are thought to be > 0.2 to 0.5%.^1,2,4 Patients with pheochromocytoma should undergo surgical adrenal resection after appropriate medical preparation. Patients with pheochromocytoma who are not diagnosed preoperatively have increased surgical mortality rates due to fatal hypertensive crises, malignant arrhythmia, and multiorgan failure as a result of hypertensive crisis.¹⁵ Anesthetic drugs during surgery also can exacerbate the cardiotoxic effects of catecholamines. Short-acting anesthetic agents, such as fentanyl, are used in patients with pheochromocytoma.¹⁶

This case of pheochromocytoma illustrated no classic symptoms of episodic headache, sweating, and tachycardia, and the patient was otherwise asymptomatic. BP was well controlled with losartan, diltiazem, and a β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol). As the patient was not known to have pheochromocytoma, he did not undergo preoperative medical therapy. Figure 4 illustrates the receptors stimulate catecholamines, and the drugs blocking these receptors prevent hypertensive crisis during surgery. However, the surgery was without potential complications (ie, hypertensive crisis, malignant arrhythmia, or multiorgan failure). The patient was diagnosed incidentally on histopathology after right radical nephrectomy and adrenalectomy due to solid partially exophytic right renal mass (5.9 cm) with right adrenal metastasis. About 10% of patients are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Sometimes, the symptoms may be ignored because of the episodic nature. Other possible reasons can be small, nonfunctional tumors or the use of antihypertensive medications suppressing the symptoms.⁷

The adrenal mass that was initially thought to be a metastasis of right kidney mass was later confirmed as pheochromocytoma. One possible explanation for uneventful surgery could be the use of β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol), α-1 adrenergic blocker (tamsulosin) along with nondihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (diltiazem) as part of the patient’s antihypertensive and BPH medication regimen. Another possible explanation could be silent or episodically secreting pheochromocytoma with a small functional portion.

Conclusions

Asymptomatic pheochromocytoma is an unusual but serious condition, especially for patients undergoing a surgical procedure. An adrenal mass may be ignored in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic older adult patients and is mostly considered as adrenal metastasis when present with other malignancies. Fortunately, the nephrectomy and adrenalectomy in our case of asymptomatic pheochromocytoma was uneventful, but pheochromocytoma should be ruled out before a surgical procedure, as an absence of medical pretreatment can lead to serious consequences. Therefore, we suggest a more careful screening of pheochromocytoma in patients with an adrenal mass (primary or metastatic) and hypertension treated with multiple antihypertensive drugs, even in older adult patients.

Pheochromocytoma is a rare catecholamine-secreting tumor of chromaffin cells of the adrenal medulla or sympathetic ganglia, occurring in about 0.2 to 0.5% of patients with hypertension.^1-3 However, in a review of 54 autopsy-proven cases of pheochromocytoma, about 50% of the patients with hypertension were not clinically suspected for pheochromocytoma.⁴

Pheochromocytoma is usually diagnosed based on symptoms of hyperadrenergic spells, resistant hypertension, especially in the young, with a pressor response to the anesthesia stress test and adrenal incidentaloma.

The classic triad of symptoms associated with pheochromocytoma includes episodic headache (90%), sweating (60-70%), and palpitations (70%).^2,5 Sustained or paroxysmal hypertension is the most common symptom reported in about 95% of patients with pheochromocytoma. Other symptoms include pallor, tremors, dyspnea, generalized weakness, orthostatic hypotension, cardiomyopathy, or hyperglycemia.⁶ However, about 10% of patients with pheochromocytoma are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Secondary causes of hypertension are usually suspected in multidrug resistant or sudden early onset of hypertension.⁸

Approximately 10% of catecholamine-secreting tumors are malignant.^9-11 Benign and malignant pheochromocytoma have a similar biochemical and histologic presentation and are differentiated based on local invasion into the surrounding tissues and organs (eg, kidney, liver) or distant metastasis.

A high index of suspicion is necessary during the workup of secondary hypertension as untreated pheochromocytoma may lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients who require surgical treatment.^4,12 Multiple cases of hypertensive crisis, pulmonary edema, cardiac arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock are reported in undiagnosed patients with pheochromocytoma undergoing both adrenal or nonadrenal surgery who were not medically prepared with α- and β-adrenergic antagonists and fluids before surgery.^13,14

A typical workup of a suspected patient with pheochromocytoma includes biochemical tests, including measurements of urinary and fractionated plasma metanephrines and catecholamine. Patients with positive biochemical tests should undergo localization of the tumor with an imaging study either with an adrenal/abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scan. If a patient has paraganglioma or an adrenal mass > 10 cm or negative abdominal imaging with a positive biochemical test, further imaging with an iobenguane I-123 scan is needed (Figure 1).

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male with a medical history of diabetes, hypertension, sensory neuropathy, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) status posttransurethral resection of the prostate, and chronic renal failure presented to establish care with the Arizona Kidney Disease and Hypertension Center. His medications included losartan 50 mg by mouth daily, diltiazem 180 mg extended-release by mouth daily, carvedilol 6.25 mg by mouth twice a day, and tamsulosin 0.4 mg by mouth daily. His presenting vitals were blood pressure (BP), 112/74 left arm sitting, pulse, 63/beats per min, and body mass index, 34. On physical examination, the patient was alert and oriented, and the chest was clear to auscultation without wheeze or rhonchi. On cardiac examination, heart rate and rhythm were regular; S1 and S2 were normal with no added murmurs, rubs or gallops, and no jugular venous distension. The abdomen was soft, nontender, with no palpable mass. His laboratory results showed sodium, 142 mmol/L; potassium, 5.3 mmol/L; chloride, 101 mmol/L; carbon dioxide, 24 mmol/L; albumin, 4.3 g/dL; creatinine, 1.89 mg/dL; blood urea nitrogen, 29 mg/dL; estimated glomerular filtration rate non-African American, 35 mL/min/1.73; 24-h urine creatinine clearance, 105 mL/min; protein, 1306 mg/24 h (Table).

His renal ultrasound showed an exophytic isoechoic mass or complex cyst at the lateral aspect of the lower pole of the right kidney, measuring 45 mm in diameter. An MRI of the abdomen with and without contrast showed a solid partially exophytic mass of the posterolateral interpolar cortex of the right kidney, measuring 5.9 cm in the greatest dimension (Figure 2). No definite involvement of Gerota fascia was noted, a 1-cm metastasis to the right adrenal gland was present, renal veins were patent, and there was no upper retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy.

Treatment and Follow-up

The patient underwent right-hand-assisted lap-aroscopic radical nephrectomy and right adre-nalectomy without any complications. However, the surgical pathology report showed oncocytoma of the kidney (5.7 cm), pheochromocytoma of the adrenal gland (1.4 cm), and papillary adenoma of the kidney (0.7 cm). Right kidney nephrectomy showed non-neoplastic renal parenchyma, diabetic glomerulosclerosis (Renal Pathology Society 2010 diabetic nephropathy class IIb), severe mesangial expansion, moderate interstitial fibrosis, moderate arteriosclerosis, and mild arteriolosclerosis.

A fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan was significant for right nephrectomy and adrenalectomy and showed no significant evidence of residual neoplasm or local or distant metastases. A nuclear medicine (iobenguane I-123) tumor and single positron emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan showed normal activity throughout the body and no evidence of abnormal activity (Figure 3).

Discussion

Pheochromocytoma is a rare cause of secondary hypertension. However, the real numbers are thought to be > 0.2 to 0.5%.^1,2,4 Patients with pheochromocytoma should undergo surgical adrenal resection after appropriate medical preparation. Patients with pheochromocytoma who are not diagnosed preoperatively have increased surgical mortality rates due to fatal hypertensive crises, malignant arrhythmia, and multiorgan failure as a result of hypertensive crisis.¹⁵ Anesthetic drugs during surgery also can exacerbate the cardiotoxic effects of catecholamines. Short-acting anesthetic agents, such as fentanyl, are used in patients with pheochromocytoma.¹⁶

This case of pheochromocytoma illustrated no classic symptoms of episodic headache, sweating, and tachycardia, and the patient was otherwise asymptomatic. BP was well controlled with losartan, diltiazem, and a β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol). As the patient was not known to have pheochromocytoma, he did not undergo preoperative medical therapy. Figure 4 illustrates the receptors stimulate catecholamines, and the drugs blocking these receptors prevent hypertensive crisis during surgery. However, the surgery was without potential complications (ie, hypertensive crisis, malignant arrhythmia, or multiorgan failure). The patient was diagnosed incidentally on histopathology after right radical nephrectomy and adrenalectomy due to solid partially exophytic right renal mass (5.9 cm) with right adrenal metastasis. About 10% of patients are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Sometimes, the symptoms may be ignored because of the episodic nature. Other possible reasons can be small, nonfunctional tumors or the use of antihypertensive medications suppressing the symptoms.⁷

The adrenal mass that was initially thought to be a metastasis of right kidney mass was later confirmed as pheochromocytoma. One possible explanation for uneventful surgery could be the use of β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol), α-1 adrenergic blocker (tamsulosin) along with nondihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (diltiazem) as part of the patient’s antihypertensive and BPH medication regimen. Another possible explanation could be silent or episodically secreting pheochromocytoma with a small functional portion.

Conclusions

Asymptomatic pheochromocytoma is an unusual but serious condition, especially for patients undergoing a surgical procedure. An adrenal mass may be ignored in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic older adult patients and is mostly considered as adrenal metastasis when present with other malignancies. Fortunately, the nephrectomy and adrenalectomy in our case of asymptomatic pheochromocytoma was uneventful, but pheochromocytoma should be ruled out before a surgical procedure, as an absence of medical pretreatment can lead to serious consequences. Therefore, we suggest a more careful screening of pheochromocytoma in patients with an adrenal mass (primary or metastatic) and hypertension treated with multiple antihypertensive drugs, even in older adult patients.

Although mesothelioma continues to be a very difficult disease to treat and one with a poor prognosis, new and emerging therapeutic developments hold the promise of extending survival for appropriately selected patients.

Following years of little to no movement, encouraging advances in treatment have been seen on the immunotherapy front. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated acceptable safety and promising efficacy in the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), including an overall survival advantage over standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy. Beyond systemic therapy, the development of new radiation techniques to complement current, more conservative surgical approaches is likewise encouraging, though further randomized clinical trial data is awaited to determine the potential impact on survival.

Longer survival would be good news for the estimated 3,000 individuals diagnosed with MPM each year in the United States. Overall, the outlook for patients with this rare cancer remains unfavorable, with a 5-year survival rate of about 11%, according to data from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program.

One factor underlying that grim survival statistic is a relative lack of investment in the development of drugs specific to rare cancers, as compared to more common malignancies, said Anne S. Tsao, MD, professor and director of the mesothelioma program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Du Cane Medical Imaging Ltd/Science Source

Checkpoint inhibitors

Multiple checkpoint inhibitors have received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) over the past few years. Because many mesothelioma doctors also treat NSCLC, bringing those agents into the mesothelioma sphere was not a very difficult jump, Dr. Tsao said.

Checkpoint inhibitors got a foothold in mesothelioma, much like in NSCLC, by demonstrating clear benefit in the salvage setting, according to Dr. Tsao.

Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and avelumab were evaluated in phase 1b/2 clinical trials and real-world cohorts that demonstrated response rates of around 20%, median progression-free survival of 4 months, and median overall survival (OS) around 12 months in patients with previously treated MPM.

Although results of those early-stage studies had to be interpreted with caution, they nonetheless suggested a slight edge for these checkpoint inhibitors over historical data, according to the authors of a recent article in Cancer Treatment Reviews.¹ On the basis of phase 1 and 2 data, current clinical practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network² list pembrolizumab and the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab as options for MPM patients who have received previous therapy. Phase 3 trials have also been launched, including PROMISE-meso, which is comparing pembrolizumab to single-agent chemotherapy in advanced, pretreated MPM³, and CONFIRM, which pits nivolumab against placebo in relapsed MPM.⁴

On the front lines

Encouraging results in previously treated MPM led to the evaluation of checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy. Notably, the FDA approved nivolumab given with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable MPM in October 2020, making that combination the first immunotherapy regimen to receive an indication in this disease.

The FDA approval was based on prespecified interim analysis of CheckMate 743, a phase 3 study that included 605 patients randomly allocated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or to placebo.

At the interim analysis, median OS was 18.1 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 14.1 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 96.6% confidence interval, 0.60-0.91; P = 0.0020), according to results of the study published in the Lancet.⁵ The 2-year OS rate was 41% for the immunotherapy combination and 27% for placebo. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 30% of the immunotherapy-treated patients and 32% of the chemotherapy-treated patients.

The magnitude of nivolumab-ipilimumab benefit appeared to be largest among patients with non-epithelioid MPM subtypes (sarcomatoid and biphasic), owing to the inferior impact of chemotherapy in these patients, with a median OS of just 8.8 months, according to investigators.

That’s not to say that immunotherapy didn’t work for patients with epithelioid histology. The benefit of nivolumab-ipilimumab was consistent for non-epithelioid and epithelioid patient subsets, with median OS of 18.1 and 18.7 months, respectively, results of subgroup analysis showed.

According to Dr. Tsao, those results reflect the extremely poor prognosis and pressing need for effective therapy early in the course of treatment for patients with non-epithelioid histology.

“You have to get the most effective therapy into these patients as quickly as you can,” she explained. “If you can get the more effective treatment and early, then you’ll see a longer-term benefit for them.”

Role of the PD-L1 biomarker

Despite this progress, one key hurdle has been determining the role of the PD-L1 biomarker in mesothelioma. In NSCLC, PD-L1 is often used to determine which patients will benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. In mesothelioma, the correlations have been more elusive.

Among patients in the CheckMate 743 study treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, OS was not significantly different for those with PD-L1 expression levels of less than 1% and those with 1% or greater, investigators said. Moreover, PD-L1 expression wasn’t a stratification factor in the study.

“When looking at all of the studies, it appears that the checkpoint inhibitors can truly benefit a certain percentage of mesothelioma patients, but we can’t pick them out just yet,” Dr. Tsao said.

“So our recommendation is to offer [checkpoint inhibitor therapy] at some point in their treatment, whether it’s first, second, or third line,” she continued. “They can get some benefit, and even in those if you don’t get a great response, you can still get disease stabilization, which in and of itself can be highly beneficial.”

Future directions

Immune checkpoint inhibitor–based combination regimens and cellular therapy represent promising directions forward in MPM research. There are several notable phase 3 trials of checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy and targeted therapy going forward, plus intriguing data emerging on the potential role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in this setting.

One phase 3 trial to watch is IND277, which is comparing pembrolizumab plus cisplatin/pemetrexed chemotherapy to cisplatin/pemetrexed alone; that trial has enrolled 520 participants and has an estimated primary completion date in July 2022, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Another is BEAT-Meso, a comparison of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy against bevacizumab and chemotherapy, which has an estimated enrollment of 400 participants and primary completion date of January 2024. A third trial of interest is DREAM3R, which compares durvalumab plus chemotherapy followed by durvalumab maintenance to standard chemotherapy followed by observation. That study should enroll 480 participants and has an estimated primary completion date of April 2025.

CAR T-cell therapy, while best known for its emerging role in the treatment of hematologic malignancies, may also have a place in mesothelioma therapy one day. In a recently published report, investigators described a first-in-human phase I study of a mesothelin-targeted CAR T-cell therapy given in combination with pembrolizumab. Among 18 MPM patients who received pembrolizumab safely, median OS from time of CAR T-cell infusion was 23.9 months and 1-year OS was 83%, according to investigators.⁶An OS of nearly 24 months is “very encouraging” and compares favorably with historical results with systemic therapy in this difficult-to-treat disease, said Jacques P. Fontaine, MD, a thoracic surgeon and section head of mesothelioma research and treatment center at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

“It’s huge, but you have to take into account that this [OS] is still less than 2 years,” Dr. Fontaine said in an interview. “There’s still a lot of work to be done.”

Radiotherapy making an IMPRINT

Meanwhile, new developments in the multimodality treatment of resectable MPM are progressing and have the potential to extend survival among patients who undergo lung-sparing surgery.

Less aggressive intervention is increasingly the preferred approach to surgery in this patient population. That shift is supported by studies showing that lung-sparing pleurectomy-decortication (P/D) resulted in less morbidity and potentially better survival outcomes than extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), according to Andreas Rimner, MD, associate attending physician and director of thoracic radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

However, it is more challenging to deliver radiotherapy safely in patients who have undergone P/D as compared with patients who have undergone EPP, according to Dr. Rimner.

“When there’s no lung in place [as in EPP], it’s pretty simple – you just treat the entire empty chest to kill any microscopic cells that may still be left behind,” he said in an interview. “But now we have a situation where both lungs are still in place, and they are very radiation sensitive, so that’s not an easy feat.”

Driven by the limitations of conventional radiation, Dr. Rimner and colleagues developed a novel technique known as hemithoracic intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy (IMPRINT) that allows more precise application of radiotherapy.

In a phase 2 study published in 2016, IMPRINT was found to be safe, with an acceptable rate of radiation pneumonitis (30% grade 2 or 3), according to investigators.⁷

Subsequent studies have demonstrated encouraging clinical outcomes, including a 20.2-month median OS for IMPRINT versus 12.3 months for conventional adjuvant radiotherapy in a retrospective study of 209 patients who underwent P/D between 1975 and 2015.⁸ Those findings led to the development of a phase 3 trial known as NRG-LU006 that is evaluating P/D plus chemotherapy with or without adjuvant IMPRINT in an estimated 150 patients. The study has a primary endpoint of OS, and an estimated primary completion date in July 2025, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.

Dr. Rimner said he’s optimistic about the prospects of this study, particularly with recently published results of a phase 3 study in which Italian investigators demonstrated an OS benefit of IMPRINT over palliative radiation in patients with nonmetastatic MPM.⁹

“That’s more data and rationale that shows there is good reason to believe that we are adding something here with this radiation technique,” said Dr. Rimner.

Dr. Fontaine, the thoracic surgeon and mesothelioma research head at Moffitt Cancer Center, said he’s hoping to see a substantial impact of IMPRINT on disease-free survival (DFS) once results of NRG-LU006 are available.

“I think DFS plays a role that we’ve underestimated over the last few years for sure,” he said.

For a patient with MPM, a short DFS can be anxiety provoking and may have negative impacts on quality of life, even despite a long OS, he explained.

“In terms of your outlook on life, how many times you have to go see a doctor, and how you enjoy life, there’s a big difference between the two,” he said.

Dr. Tsao provided disclosures related to Ariad, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Genentech, Huron, Merck, Millennium, Novartis, Polaris, Roche, Seattle Genetics, SELLAS Life Sciences Group, and Takeda. Dr. Fontaine reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Rimner reported disclosures related to Bristol-Myers Squibb, GE Healthcare, Varian Medical Systems, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

References

1. Parikh K et al. Cancer Treat Rev. 2021 Sept 1;99:102250.

2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines. Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. Version 2.2021, published 2021 Feb 16. Accessed 2021 Aug 30. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/mpm.pdf

3. Popat S et al. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(12):1734-45.

4. Fennell D et al. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2021 Mar 1;16(3):S62.

5. Baas P et al. [published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Feb 20;397(10275):670]. Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):375-86.

6. Adusumilli PS et al. Cancer Discov. 2021 Jul 15;candisc.0407.2021.

7. Rimner A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2761-8.

8. Shaikh F et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(6):993-1000.

9. Trovo M et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(5):1368-76.

Although mesothelioma continues to be a very difficult disease to treat and one with a poor prognosis, new and emerging therapeutic developments hold the promise of extending survival for appropriately selected patients.

Following years of little to no movement, encouraging advances in treatment have been seen on the immunotherapy front. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated acceptable safety and promising efficacy in the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), including an overall survival advantage over standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy. Beyond systemic therapy, the development of new radiation techniques to complement current, more conservative surgical approaches is likewise encouraging, though further randomized clinical trial data is awaited to determine the potential impact on survival.

Longer survival would be good news for the estimated 3,000 individuals diagnosed with MPM each year in the United States. Overall, the outlook for patients with this rare cancer remains unfavorable, with a 5-year survival rate of about 11%, according to data from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program.

One factor underlying that grim survival statistic is a relative lack of investment in the development of drugs specific to rare cancers, as compared to more common malignancies, said Anne S. Tsao, MD, professor and director of the mesothelioma program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Du Cane Medical Imaging Ltd/Science Source

Checkpoint inhibitors

Multiple checkpoint inhibitors have received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) over the past few years. Because many mesothelioma doctors also treat NSCLC, bringing those agents into the mesothelioma sphere was not a very difficult jump, Dr. Tsao said.

Checkpoint inhibitors got a foothold in mesothelioma, much like in NSCLC, by demonstrating clear benefit in the salvage setting, according to Dr. Tsao.

Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and avelumab were evaluated in phase 1b/2 clinical trials and real-world cohorts that demonstrated response rates of around 20%, median progression-free survival of 4 months, and median overall survival (OS) around 12 months in patients with previously treated MPM.

Although results of those early-stage studies had to be interpreted with caution, they nonetheless suggested a slight edge for these checkpoint inhibitors over historical data, according to the authors of a recent article in Cancer Treatment Reviews.¹ On the basis of phase 1 and 2 data, current clinical practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network² list pembrolizumab and the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab as options for MPM patients who have received previous therapy. Phase 3 trials have also been launched, including PROMISE-meso, which is comparing pembrolizumab to single-agent chemotherapy in advanced, pretreated MPM³, and CONFIRM, which pits nivolumab against placebo in relapsed MPM.⁴

On the front lines

Encouraging results in previously treated MPM led to the evaluation of checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy. Notably, the FDA approved nivolumab given with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable MPM in October 2020, making that combination the first immunotherapy regimen to receive an indication in this disease.

The FDA approval was based on prespecified interim analysis of CheckMate 743, a phase 3 study that included 605 patients randomly allocated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or to placebo.

At the interim analysis, median OS was 18.1 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 14.1 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 96.6% confidence interval, 0.60-0.91; P = 0.0020), according to results of the study published in the Lancet.⁵ The 2-year OS rate was 41% for the immunotherapy combination and 27% for placebo. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 30% of the immunotherapy-treated patients and 32% of the chemotherapy-treated patients.

The magnitude of nivolumab-ipilimumab benefit appeared to be largest among patients with non-epithelioid MPM subtypes (sarcomatoid and biphasic), owing to the inferior impact of chemotherapy in these patients, with a median OS of just 8.8 months, according to investigators.

That’s not to say that immunotherapy didn’t work for patients with epithelioid histology. The benefit of nivolumab-ipilimumab was consistent for non-epithelioid and epithelioid patient subsets, with median OS of 18.1 and 18.7 months, respectively, results of subgroup analysis showed.

According to Dr. Tsao, those results reflect the extremely poor prognosis and pressing need for effective therapy early in the course of treatment for patients with non-epithelioid histology.

“You have to get the most effective therapy into these patients as quickly as you can,” she explained. “If you can get the more effective treatment and early, then you’ll see a longer-term benefit for them.”

Role of the PD-L1 biomarker

Despite this progress, one key hurdle has been determining the role of the PD-L1 biomarker in mesothelioma. In NSCLC, PD-L1 is often used to determine which patients will benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. In mesothelioma, the correlations have been more elusive.

Among patients in the CheckMate 743 study treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, OS was not significantly different for those with PD-L1 expression levels of less than 1% and those with 1% or greater, investigators said. Moreover, PD-L1 expression wasn’t a stratification factor in the study.

“When looking at all of the studies, it appears that the checkpoint inhibitors can truly benefit a certain percentage of mesothelioma patients, but we can’t pick them out just yet,” Dr. Tsao said.

“So our recommendation is to offer [checkpoint inhibitor therapy] at some point in their treatment, whether it’s first, second, or third line,” she continued. “They can get some benefit, and even in those if you don’t get a great response, you can still get disease stabilization, which in and of itself can be highly beneficial.”

Future directions

Immune checkpoint inhibitor–based combination regimens and cellular therapy represent promising directions forward in MPM research. There are several notable phase 3 trials of checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy and targeted therapy going forward, plus intriguing data emerging on the potential role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in this setting.

One phase 3 trial to watch is IND277, which is comparing pembrolizumab plus cisplatin/pemetrexed chemotherapy to cisplatin/pemetrexed alone; that trial has enrolled 520 participants and has an estimated primary completion date in July 2022, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Another is BEAT-Meso, a comparison of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy against bevacizumab and chemotherapy, which has an estimated enrollment of 400 participants and primary completion date of January 2024. A third trial of interest is DREAM3R, which compares durvalumab plus chemotherapy followed by durvalumab maintenance to standard chemotherapy followed by observation. That study should enroll 480 participants and has an estimated primary completion date of April 2025.

CAR T-cell therapy, while best known for its emerging role in the treatment of hematologic malignancies, may also have a place in mesothelioma therapy one day. In a recently published report, investigators described a first-in-human phase I study of a mesothelin-targeted CAR T-cell therapy given in combination with pembrolizumab. Among 18 MPM patients who received pembrolizumab safely, median OS from time of CAR T-cell infusion was 23.9 months and 1-year OS was 83%, according to investigators.⁶An OS of nearly 24 months is “very encouraging” and compares favorably with historical results with systemic therapy in this difficult-to-treat disease, said Jacques P. Fontaine, MD, a thoracic surgeon and section head of mesothelioma research and treatment center at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

“It’s huge, but you have to take into account that this [OS] is still less than 2 years,” Dr. Fontaine said in an interview. “There’s still a lot of work to be done.”

Radiotherapy making an IMPRINT

Meanwhile, new developments in the multimodality treatment of resectable MPM are progressing and have the potential to extend survival among patients who undergo lung-sparing surgery.

Less aggressive intervention is increasingly the preferred approach to surgery in this patient population. That shift is supported by studies showing that lung-sparing pleurectomy-decortication (P/D) resulted in less morbidity and potentially better survival outcomes than extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), according to Andreas Rimner, MD, associate attending physician and director of thoracic radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

However, it is more challenging to deliver radiotherapy safely in patients who have undergone P/D as compared with patients who have undergone EPP, according to Dr. Rimner.

“When there’s no lung in place [as in EPP], it’s pretty simple – you just treat the entire empty chest to kill any microscopic cells that may still be left behind,” he said in an interview. “But now we have a situation where both lungs are still in place, and they are very radiation sensitive, so that’s not an easy feat.”

Driven by the limitations of conventional radiation, Dr. Rimner and colleagues developed a novel technique known as hemithoracic intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy (IMPRINT) that allows more precise application of radiotherapy.

In a phase 2 study published in 2016, IMPRINT was found to be safe, with an acceptable rate of radiation pneumonitis (30% grade 2 or 3), according to investigators.⁷

Subsequent studies have demonstrated encouraging clinical outcomes, including a 20.2-month median OS for IMPRINT versus 12.3 months for conventional adjuvant radiotherapy in a retrospective study of 209 patients who underwent P/D between 1975 and 2015.⁸ Those findings led to the development of a phase 3 trial known as NRG-LU006 that is evaluating P/D plus chemotherapy with or without adjuvant IMPRINT in an estimated 150 patients. The study has a primary endpoint of OS, and an estimated primary completion date in July 2025, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.

Dr. Rimner said he’s optimistic about the prospects of this study, particularly with recently published results of a phase 3 study in which Italian investigators demonstrated an OS benefit of IMPRINT over palliative radiation in patients with nonmetastatic MPM.⁹

“That’s more data and rationale that shows there is good reason to believe that we are adding something here with this radiation technique,” said Dr. Rimner.

Dr. Fontaine, the thoracic surgeon and mesothelioma research head at Moffitt Cancer Center, said he’s hoping to see a substantial impact of IMPRINT on disease-free survival (DFS) once results of NRG-LU006 are available.

“I think DFS plays a role that we’ve underestimated over the last few years for sure,” he said.

For a patient with MPM, a short DFS can be anxiety provoking and may have negative impacts on quality of life, even despite a long OS, he explained.

“In terms of your outlook on life, how many times you have to go see a doctor, and how you enjoy life, there’s a big difference between the two,” he said.

Dr. Tsao provided disclosures related to Ariad, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Genentech, Huron, Merck, Millennium, Novartis, Polaris, Roche, Seattle Genetics, SELLAS Life Sciences Group, and Takeda. Dr. Fontaine reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Rimner reported disclosures related to Bristol-Myers Squibb, GE Healthcare, Varian Medical Systems, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

References

1. Parikh K et al. Cancer Treat Rev. 2021 Sept 1;99:102250.

2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines. Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. Version 2.2021, published 2021 Feb 16. Accessed 2021 Aug 30. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/mpm.pdf

3. Popat S et al. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(12):1734-45.

4. Fennell D et al. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2021 Mar 1;16(3):S62.

5. Baas P et al. [published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Feb 20;397(10275):670]. Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):375-86.

6. Adusumilli PS et al. Cancer Discov. 2021 Jul 15;candisc.0407.2021.

7. Rimner A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2761-8.

8. Shaikh F et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(6):993-1000.

9. Trovo M et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(5):1368-76.

Although mesothelioma continues to be a very difficult disease to treat and one with a poor prognosis, new and emerging therapeutic developments hold the promise of extending survival for appropriately selected patients.

Following years of little to no movement, encouraging advances in treatment have been seen on the immunotherapy front. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated acceptable safety and promising efficacy in the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), including an overall survival advantage over standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy. Beyond systemic therapy, the development of new radiation techniques to complement current, more conservative surgical approaches is likewise encouraging, though further randomized clinical trial data is awaited to determine the potential impact on survival.

Longer survival would be good news for the estimated 3,000 individuals diagnosed with MPM each year in the United States. Overall, the outlook for patients with this rare cancer remains unfavorable, with a 5-year survival rate of about 11%, according to data from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program.

One factor underlying that grim survival statistic is a relative lack of investment in the development of drugs specific to rare cancers, as compared to more common malignancies, said Anne S. Tsao, MD, professor and director of the mesothelioma program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Du Cane Medical Imaging Ltd/Science Source

Checkpoint inhibitors

Multiple checkpoint inhibitors have received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) over the past few years. Because many mesothelioma doctors also treat NSCLC, bringing those agents into the mesothelioma sphere was not a very difficult jump, Dr. Tsao said.

Checkpoint inhibitors got a foothold in mesothelioma, much like in NSCLC, by demonstrating clear benefit in the salvage setting, according to Dr. Tsao.

Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and avelumab were evaluated in phase 1b/2 clinical trials and real-world cohorts that demonstrated response rates of around 20%, median progression-free survival of 4 months, and median overall survival (OS) around 12 months in patients with previously treated MPM.

Although results of those early-stage studies had to be interpreted with caution, they nonetheless suggested a slight edge for these checkpoint inhibitors over historical data, according to the authors of a recent article in Cancer Treatment Reviews.¹ On the basis of phase 1 and 2 data, current clinical practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network² list pembrolizumab and the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab as options for MPM patients who have received previous therapy. Phase 3 trials have also been launched, including PROMISE-meso, which is comparing pembrolizumab to single-agent chemotherapy in advanced, pretreated MPM³, and CONFIRM, which pits nivolumab against placebo in relapsed MPM.⁴

On the front lines

Encouraging results in previously treated MPM led to the evaluation of checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy. Notably, the FDA approved nivolumab given with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable MPM in October 2020, making that combination the first immunotherapy regimen to receive an indication in this disease.

The FDA approval was based on prespecified interim analysis of CheckMate 743, a phase 3 study that included 605 patients randomly allocated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or to placebo.

At the interim analysis, median OS was 18.1 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 14.1 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 96.6% confidence interval, 0.60-0.91; P = 0.0020), according to results of the study published in the Lancet.⁵ The 2-year OS rate was 41% for the immunotherapy combination and 27% for placebo. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 30% of the immunotherapy-treated patients and 32% of the chemotherapy-treated patients.

The magnitude of nivolumab-ipilimumab benefit appeared to be largest among patients with non-epithelioid MPM subtypes (sarcomatoid and biphasic), owing to the inferior impact of chemotherapy in these patients, with a median OS of just 8.8 months, according to investigators.

That’s not to say that immunotherapy didn’t work for patients with epithelioid histology. The benefit of nivolumab-ipilimumab was consistent for non-epithelioid and epithelioid patient subsets, with median OS of 18.1 and 18.7 months, respectively, results of subgroup analysis showed.

According to Dr. Tsao, those results reflect the extremely poor prognosis and pressing need for effective therapy early in the course of treatment for patients with non-epithelioid histology.

“You have to get the most effective therapy into these patients as quickly as you can,” she explained. “If you can get the more effective treatment and early, then you’ll see a longer-term benefit for them.”

Role of the PD-L1 biomarker

Despite this progress, one key hurdle has been determining the role of the PD-L1 biomarker in mesothelioma. In NSCLC, PD-L1 is often used to determine which patients will benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. In mesothelioma, the correlations have been more elusive.

Among patients in the CheckMate 743 study treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, OS was not significantly different for those with PD-L1 expression levels of less than 1% and those with 1% or greater, investigators said. Moreover, PD-L1 expression wasn’t a stratification factor in the study.

“When looking at all of the studies, it appears that the checkpoint inhibitors can truly benefit a certain percentage of mesothelioma patients, but we can’t pick them out just yet,” Dr. Tsao said.

“So our recommendation is to offer [checkpoint inhibitor therapy] at some point in their treatment, whether it’s first, second, or third line,” she continued. “They can get some benefit, and even in those if you don’t get a great response, you can still get disease stabilization, which in and of itself can be highly beneficial.”

Future directions

Immune checkpoint inhibitor–based combination regimens and cellular therapy represent promising directions forward in MPM research. There are several notable phase 3 trials of checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy and targeted therapy going forward, plus intriguing data emerging on the potential role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in this setting.

One phase 3 trial to watch is IND277, which is comparing pembrolizumab plus cisplatin/pemetrexed chemotherapy to cisplatin/pemetrexed alone; that trial has enrolled 520 participants and has an estimated primary completion date in July 2022, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Another is BEAT-Meso, a comparison of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy against bevacizumab and chemotherapy, which has an estimated enrollment of 400 participants and primary completion date of January 2024. A third trial of interest is DREAM3R, which compares durvalumab plus chemotherapy followed by durvalumab maintenance to standard chemotherapy followed by observation. That study should enroll 480 participants and has an estimated primary completion date of April 2025.

CAR T-cell therapy, while best known for its emerging role in the treatment of hematologic malignancies, may also have a place in mesothelioma therapy one day. In a recently published report, investigators described a first-in-human phase I study of a mesothelin-targeted CAR T-cell therapy given in combination with pembrolizumab. Among 18 MPM patients who received pembrolizumab safely, median OS from time of CAR T-cell infusion was 23.9 months and 1-year OS was 83%, according to investigators.⁶An OS of nearly 24 months is “very encouraging” and compares favorably with historical results with systemic therapy in this difficult-to-treat disease, said Jacques P. Fontaine, MD, a thoracic surgeon and section head of mesothelioma research and treatment center at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

“It’s huge, but you have to take into account that this [OS] is still less than 2 years,” Dr. Fontaine said in an interview. “There’s still a lot of work to be done.”

Radiotherapy making an IMPRINT

Meanwhile, new developments in the multimodality treatment of resectable MPM are progressing and have the potential to extend survival among patients who undergo lung-sparing surgery.

Less aggressive intervention is increasingly the preferred approach to surgery in this patient population. That shift is supported by studies showing that lung-sparing pleurectomy-decortication (P/D) resulted in less morbidity and potentially better survival outcomes than extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), according to Andreas Rimner, MD, associate attending physician and director of thoracic radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

However, it is more challenging to deliver radiotherapy safely in patients who have undergone P/D as compared with patients who have undergone EPP, according to Dr. Rimner.

“When there’s no lung in place [as in EPP], it’s pretty simple – you just treat the entire empty chest to kill any microscopic cells that may still be left behind,” he said in an interview. “But now we have a situation where both lungs are still in place, and they are very radiation sensitive, so that’s not an easy feat.”

Driven by the limitations of conventional radiation, Dr. Rimner and colleagues developed a novel technique known as hemithoracic intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy (IMPRINT) that allows more precise application of radiotherapy.

In a phase 2 study published in 2016, IMPRINT was found to be safe, with an acceptable rate of radiation pneumonitis (30% grade 2 or 3), according to investigators.⁷

Subsequent studies have demonstrated encouraging clinical outcomes, including a 20.2-month median OS for IMPRINT versus 12.3 months for conventional adjuvant radiotherapy in a retrospective study of 209 patients who underwent P/D between 1975 and 2015.⁸ Those findings led to the development of a phase 3 trial known as NRG-LU006 that is evaluating P/D plus chemotherapy with or without adjuvant IMPRINT in an estimated 150 patients. The study has a primary endpoint of OS, and an estimated primary completion date in July 2025, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.

Dr. Rimner said he’s optimistic about the prospects of this study, particularly with recently published results of a phase 3 study in which Italian investigators demonstrated an OS benefit of IMPRINT over palliative radiation in patients with nonmetastatic MPM.⁹

“That’s more data and rationale that shows there is good reason to believe that we are adding something here with this radiation technique,” said Dr. Rimner.

Dr. Fontaine, the thoracic surgeon and mesothelioma research head at Moffitt Cancer Center, said he’s hoping to see a substantial impact of IMPRINT on disease-free survival (DFS) once results of NRG-LU006 are available.

“I think DFS plays a role that we’ve underestimated over the last few years for sure,” he said.

For a patient with MPM, a short DFS can be anxiety provoking and may have negative impacts on quality of life, even despite a long OS, he explained.

“In terms of your outlook on life, how many times you have to go see a doctor, and how you enjoy life, there’s a big difference between the two,” he said.

Dr. Tsao provided disclosures related to Ariad, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Genentech, Huron, Merck, Millennium, Novartis, Polaris, Roche, Seattle Genetics, SELLAS Life Sciences Group, and Takeda. Dr. Fontaine reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Rimner reported disclosures related to Bristol-Myers Squibb, GE Healthcare, Varian Medical Systems, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

References

1. Parikh K et al. Cancer Treat Rev. 2021 Sept 1;99:102250.

2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines. Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. Version 2.2021, published 2021 Feb 16. Accessed 2021 Aug 30. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/mpm.pdf

3. Popat S et al. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(12):1734-45.

4. Fennell D et al. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2021 Mar 1;16(3):S62.

5. Baas P et al. [published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Feb 20;397(10275):670]. Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):375-86.

6. Adusumilli PS et al. Cancer Discov. 2021 Jul 15;candisc.0407.2021.

7. Rimner A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2761-8.

8. Shaikh F et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(6):993-1000.

9. Trovo M et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(5):1368-76.

No one’s quite sure what causes uveal melanoma (UM). Unlike skin cancers, UM doesn’t seem to have any link to exposure to ultraviolet rays, although it’s most likely to strike people who are vulnerable to sun damage, like Caucasians and people with lighter eyes and lighter skin (but not lighter hair), and an inability to tan. Up to half of those affected by the disease will recover after treatment. In the other half, the cancer spreads from the eye – typically to the liver – and patient prognoses remain extremely poor despite extensive efforts to develop effective treatments.

“The median survival is probably about 2 years, and there are a number of papers out there that talk about life expectancy as short as 6 months,” said Marlana Orloff, MD, an associate professor of medical oncology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia.

But there is hope on the horizon, even if it’s not as near as patients would prefer. “Just over the last 5-10 years, we’ve gained a lot more knowledge about this disease as we try to understand how distinctly different it is, how mutations drive it, and how we can approach it using immunotherapy,” Dr. Orloff said. “I hope we’ll come up with better options for prolonging survival.” Indeed, multiple clinical trials are in the works despite the rarity of the disease.

Tracking uveal melanoma’s dangerous course

All melanomas, including UM, strike the melanocytes (cells) that provide pigment. According to a 2017 report¹ in the journal Eye, “uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular tumor in adults with a mean age-adjusted incidence of 5.1 cases per million per year. Tumors are located either in the iris (4%), ciliary body (6%), or choroid (90%) . … As in many other cancer indications, both early detection and early treatment could be critical for a positive long-term survival outcome in uveal melanoma.”

The median age of diagnosis is 59-62 years, the report says, although non-Whites seem to develop the disease earlier.

The vast majority of patients receive treatment by plaque brachytherapy via radioactive seeds. “It’s like brachytherapy of the prostate,” said medical oncologist Rino S. Seedor, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. “If the eye tumor is too big or invasive, they’ll cut out the eye.”

As many as 50% of patients will develop metastasis, sometimes within 2-3 years in those who have large tumors and high genetic risk, said ophthalmologist and radiation oncologist Miguel Materin, MD, of Duke University Eye Center, Durham, N.C. “There’s probably micrometastasis early in the development of the tumor,” he said. “The metastasis might develop before we or the patient knows there’s a tumor.”

Some physicians question the value of prognostic testing in patients who don’t yet show signs of metastasis, Dr. Materin said, because the findings can be grim.

Unlike his more cautious colleagues, Dr. Materin prefers to pursue testing, he said. Most patients agree to it. “It’s up to them to decide if they want to know if they have a bad prognosis,” he said, and the findings can be helpful to physicians because they provide useful genetic information about tumors.

Monitoring for liver metastasis is key

UM metastases are most likely to strike the liver, and prognoses are especially poor when they do. According to a 2019 analysis of 175 patients with metastatic UM in the Netherlands, “the presence of liver metastases is negatively associated with survival (hazard ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.08). … In 154 (88%) patients, the liver was affected, and only 3 patients were reported to have brain metastases.”²

As a result, physicians recommend close monitoring in patients with UM. Thomas Jefferson University’s Dr. Orloff uses tumor stages and genetic risk profiles to guide surveillance. “Very large tumors and/or monosomy 3 and 8q amplification or a Class 2 gene signature would suggest a higher-risk tumor,” she said. “For these patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 3 months for 2 years, CT of the chest every 6 months for 2 years, labs every 3 months for 2 years, then MRI every 6 months until year 5 with chest imaging yearly, then at 5 years everything yearly. For lower- or intermediate-risk patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 6 months for 5 years, chest imaging yearly, labs every 6 months, then at 5 years everything yearly.”

In the United States, patients with metastatic disease are typically sent to referral centers at institutions such as Duke, Yale (New Haven, Conn.), and Thomas Jefferson universities.

Metastasis treatments offer limited relief

There are no FDA-approved treatments for metastatic MU, and the treatments that physicians do use don’t seem to have much of an effect on life span. A 2019 study examined 73 patients with MU metastasis to the liver who were treated from 2004 to 2011 and 2012 to 2016. Among both cohorts, those who had no treatment lived nearly as long (median of 15 months) as those treated with local therapy (median of 18.7 months). Median survival for the entire population was 15 months (95% CI: 11–18 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the periods.³

However, there are signs that a move away from first-line chemotherapy in recent decades has led to longer life spans. Dr. Seedor led a 2018 study⁴ that compared two cohorts of MU patients with liver metastasis at her university: 98 patients from 1971 to 1993 (81% received systemic chemotherapy as their initial therapy) and 574 from 2000 to 2017 (they received various liver-directed initial treatments such as chemoembolization, drug-eluting beads, immunoembolization, and radioembolization).

The patients in the second group lived longer after treatment of initial UM than the first group (5.1 years vs. 3.3 years, P < .001) and after the development of liver metastasis (16.4 months vs. 4.8 months, P < .001). A 2020 follow-up study reported similar findings and noted that a “combination of liver-directed and newly developed systemic treatments may further improve the survival of these patients.”⁵

At Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, liver-directed therapy includes radioembolization, chemomobilization, and microwave ablation, Dr. Seedor said. “Which one we choose is based on how big the tumors are.”

Treatments in development could make advances

Physicians are working on several fronts to develop new treatments. A 2021 review of clinical trials found numerous trials regarding checkpoint inhibition, one devoted to a vaccine, and several involving checkpoint inhibitors. The review author notes that “the low mutational burden and poor immunogenicity of UM tumors may underlie poor responses and resistance to [immune checkpoint inhibitors] alone.”⁶

Earlier this year, grant-funded researchers reported encouraging news on the G protein inhibitor front. Their study found that FR900359, a selective inhibitor of the Gq/11/14 subfamily of heterotrimeric G proteins, could hold promise for “treating UM and potentially other diseases caused by constitutively active Gq/11.”⁷

In another 2021 study, this one with no reported funding, researchers explored the tumor microenvironment of UM and reported that their findings “provided a robust gene-based prognostic signature for predicting prognosis of UM patients and proposed a potential targeted therapy for preventing UM metastasis.”⁸

Experimental drug may add months of life

Physicians often recommend that patients take part in clinical trials. Earlier this year, researchers reported that a drug called tebentafusp – a bispecific fusion protein – slightly boosted metastatic UM survival in an open-label, phase 3 clinical trial when used as a first-line treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to tebentafusp, 1 of 2 immunotherapy drugs (ipilimumab or pembrolizumab), or the chemotherapy drug dacarbazine. Those who took tebentafusp vs. the other options lived longer with an estimated 1-year overall rate of 73.2% (95% CI: 66.3-78.9) vs. 57.5% (95% CI: 47.0-66.6), respectively. Fewer than 4% of those on tebentafusp needed to stop it because of adverse effects, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.⁹

Dr. Orloff is one of the coauthors of this study.

The National Cancer Institute provided more details about the industry-funded research and noted that median overall survival for patients who received the drug was 21.7 months vs. 16 months for the control group.

Not every patient is eligible for this treatment, however. A coauthor told the American Association for Cancer Research that “the major limitation of tebentafusp is that it can only be used in patients who have a specific HLA [human leukocyte antigen] type.” Patients must be HLA-A*0201-positive.¹⁰

In August 2021, the FDA granted priority review for tebentafusp.¹¹ And in September 2021, a company called TriSalus announced the first patient enrollment in a “clinical study evaluating the administration of SD-101, an investigational toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist in adults with metastatic uveal melanoma.”¹²

According to the company, the research “is designed to evaluate the intravascular administration of SD-101 into uveal melanoma liver metastasis lesions in combination with checkpoint inhibitors using the novel Pressure-Enabled Drug Delivery (PEDD) approach.” This strategy is “designed to overcome the inherent intratumoral pressure of solid tumors,” the company said.

Dr. Materin serves on a scientific advisory board for Castle Biosciences. Dr. Orloff is a consultant for Immunocore, which funded the tebentafusp study, and serves on a scientific advisory board for TriSalus. Dr. Seedor reports no disclosures.

References

1.Kaliki S and Shields C. Eye. 2017 Feb;31:241-57.

2.Jochems A et al. Cancers. 2019 July;11(7):1007.

3.Xu LT et al. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2019;5:323-32.

4.Seedor RS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 May;36(15_suppl):9592.

5.Seedor RS et al. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Jan 1;12(1):117.

6.Orloff M. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2021 July;7:168-76.

7.Onken MD et al. J Biol Chem. 2021;296:100403.

8.Lei S and Zhang Y. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 July;96:107816.

9.Piperno-Neumann S et al. Proceedings of the 112th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2021 April 10-15. Philadelphia (Pa.): AACR; 2021. Abstract nr 5133.

10.National Cancer Institute: https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2021/tebentafusp-uveal-melanoma-improves-survival

11.Immunocore press release: https://ir.immunocore.com/news-releases/news-release-details/immunocore-announces-us-food-and-drug-administration-and

12.Trisalus announcement: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trisalus-life-sciences-announces-first-130000215.html?guccounter=1

No one’s quite sure what causes uveal melanoma (UM). Unlike skin cancers, UM doesn’t seem to have any link to exposure to ultraviolet rays, although it’s most likely to strike people who are vulnerable to sun damage, like Caucasians and people with lighter eyes and lighter skin (but not lighter hair), and an inability to tan. Up to half of those affected by the disease will recover after treatment. In the other half, the cancer spreads from the eye – typically to the liver – and patient prognoses remain extremely poor despite extensive efforts to develop effective treatments.

“The median survival is probably about 2 years, and there are a number of papers out there that talk about life expectancy as short as 6 months,” said Marlana Orloff, MD, an associate professor of medical oncology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia.

But there is hope on the horizon, even if it’s not as near as patients would prefer. “Just over the last 5-10 years, we’ve gained a lot more knowledge about this disease as we try to understand how distinctly different it is, how mutations drive it, and how we can approach it using immunotherapy,” Dr. Orloff said. “I hope we’ll come up with better options for prolonging survival.” Indeed, multiple clinical trials are in the works despite the rarity of the disease.

Tracking uveal melanoma’s dangerous course

All melanomas, including UM, strike the melanocytes (cells) that provide pigment. According to a 2017 report¹ in the journal Eye, “uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular tumor in adults with a mean age-adjusted incidence of 5.1 cases per million per year. Tumors are located either in the iris (4%), ciliary body (6%), or choroid (90%) . … As in many other cancer indications, both early detection and early treatment could be critical for a positive long-term survival outcome in uveal melanoma.”

The median age of diagnosis is 59-62 years, the report says, although non-Whites seem to develop the disease earlier.

The vast majority of patients receive treatment by plaque brachytherapy via radioactive seeds. “It’s like brachytherapy of the prostate,” said medical oncologist Rino S. Seedor, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. “If the eye tumor is too big or invasive, they’ll cut out the eye.”

As many as 50% of patients will develop metastasis, sometimes within 2-3 years in those who have large tumors and high genetic risk, said ophthalmologist and radiation oncologist Miguel Materin, MD, of Duke University Eye Center, Durham, N.C. “There’s probably micrometastasis early in the development of the tumor,” he said. “The metastasis might develop before we or the patient knows there’s a tumor.”

Some physicians question the value of prognostic testing in patients who don’t yet show signs of metastasis, Dr. Materin said, because the findings can be grim.

Unlike his more cautious colleagues, Dr. Materin prefers to pursue testing, he said. Most patients agree to it. “It’s up to them to decide if they want to know if they have a bad prognosis,” he said, and the findings can be helpful to physicians because they provide useful genetic information about tumors.

Monitoring for liver metastasis is key

UM metastases are most likely to strike the liver, and prognoses are especially poor when they do. According to a 2019 analysis of 175 patients with metastatic UM in the Netherlands, “the presence of liver metastases is negatively associated with survival (hazard ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.08). … In 154 (88%) patients, the liver was affected, and only 3 patients were reported to have brain metastases.”²

As a result, physicians recommend close monitoring in patients with UM. Thomas Jefferson University’s Dr. Orloff uses tumor stages and genetic risk profiles to guide surveillance. “Very large tumors and/or monosomy 3 and 8q amplification or a Class 2 gene signature would suggest a higher-risk tumor,” she said. “For these patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 3 months for 2 years, CT of the chest every 6 months for 2 years, labs every 3 months for 2 years, then MRI every 6 months until year 5 with chest imaging yearly, then at 5 years everything yearly. For lower- or intermediate-risk patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 6 months for 5 years, chest imaging yearly, labs every 6 months, then at 5 years everything yearly.”

In the United States, patients with metastatic disease are typically sent to referral centers at institutions such as Duke, Yale (New Haven, Conn.), and Thomas Jefferson universities.

Metastasis treatments offer limited relief

There are no FDA-approved treatments for metastatic MU, and the treatments that physicians do use don’t seem to have much of an effect on life span. A 2019 study examined 73 patients with MU metastasis to the liver who were treated from 2004 to 2011 and 2012 to 2016. Among both cohorts, those who had no treatment lived nearly as long (median of 15 months) as those treated with local therapy (median of 18.7 months). Median survival for the entire population was 15 months (95% CI: 11–18 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the periods.³

However, there are signs that a move away from first-line chemotherapy in recent decades has led to longer life spans. Dr. Seedor led a 2018 study⁴ that compared two cohorts of MU patients with liver metastasis at her university: 98 patients from 1971 to 1993 (81% received systemic chemotherapy as their initial therapy) and 574 from 2000 to 2017 (they received various liver-directed initial treatments such as chemoembolization, drug-eluting beads, immunoembolization, and radioembolization).

The patients in the second group lived longer after treatment of initial UM than the first group (5.1 years vs. 3.3 years, P < .001) and after the development of liver metastasis (16.4 months vs. 4.8 months, P < .001). A 2020 follow-up study reported similar findings and noted that a “combination of liver-directed and newly developed systemic treatments may further improve the survival of these patients.”⁵

At Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, liver-directed therapy includes radioembolization, chemomobilization, and microwave ablation, Dr. Seedor said. “Which one we choose is based on how big the tumors are.”

Treatments in development could make advances

Physicians are working on several fronts to develop new treatments. A 2021 review of clinical trials found numerous trials regarding checkpoint inhibition, one devoted to a vaccine, and several involving checkpoint inhibitors. The review author notes that “the low mutational burden and poor immunogenicity of UM tumors may underlie poor responses and resistance to [immune checkpoint inhibitors] alone.”⁶

Earlier this year, grant-funded researchers reported encouraging news on the G protein inhibitor front. Their study found that FR900359, a selective inhibitor of the Gq/11/14 subfamily of heterotrimeric G proteins, could hold promise for “treating UM and potentially other diseases caused by constitutively active Gq/11.”⁷

In another 2021 study, this one with no reported funding, researchers explored the tumor microenvironment of UM and reported that their findings “provided a robust gene-based prognostic signature for predicting prognosis of UM patients and proposed a potential targeted therapy for preventing UM metastasis.”⁸

Experimental drug may add months of life

Physicians often recommend that patients take part in clinical trials. Earlier this year, researchers reported that a drug called tebentafusp – a bispecific fusion protein – slightly boosted metastatic UM survival in an open-label, phase 3 clinical trial when used as a first-line treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to tebentafusp, 1 of 2 immunotherapy drugs (ipilimumab or pembrolizumab), or the chemotherapy drug dacarbazine. Those who took tebentafusp vs. the other options lived longer with an estimated 1-year overall rate of 73.2% (95% CI: 66.3-78.9) vs. 57.5% (95% CI: 47.0-66.6), respectively. Fewer than 4% of those on tebentafusp needed to stop it because of adverse effects, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.⁹

Dr. Orloff is one of the coauthors of this study.

The National Cancer Institute provided more details about the industry-funded research and noted that median overall survival for patients who received the drug was 21.7 months vs. 16 months for the control group.

Not every patient is eligible for this treatment, however. A coauthor told the American Association for Cancer Research that “the major limitation of tebentafusp is that it can only be used in patients who have a specific HLA [human leukocyte antigen] type.” Patients must be HLA-A*0201-positive.¹⁰

In August 2021, the FDA granted priority review for tebentafusp.¹¹ And in September 2021, a company called TriSalus announced the first patient enrollment in a “clinical study evaluating the administration of SD-101, an investigational toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist in adults with metastatic uveal melanoma.”¹²

According to the company, the research “is designed to evaluate the intravascular administration of SD-101 into uveal melanoma liver metastasis lesions in combination with checkpoint inhibitors using the novel Pressure-Enabled Drug Delivery (PEDD) approach.” This strategy is “designed to overcome the inherent intratumoral pressure of solid tumors,” the company said.

Dr. Materin serves on a scientific advisory board for Castle Biosciences. Dr. Orloff is a consultant for Immunocore, which funded the tebentafusp study, and serves on a scientific advisory board for TriSalus. Dr. Seedor reports no disclosures.

References

1.Kaliki S and Shields C. Eye. 2017 Feb;31:241-57.

2.Jochems A et al. Cancers. 2019 July;11(7):1007.

3.Xu LT et al. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2019;5:323-32.

4.Seedor RS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 May;36(15_suppl):9592.

5.Seedor RS et al. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Jan 1;12(1):117.

6.Orloff M. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2021 July;7:168-76.

7.Onken MD et al. J Biol Chem. 2021;296:100403.

8.Lei S and Zhang Y. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 July;96:107816.

9.Piperno-Neumann S et al. Proceedings of the 112th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2021 April 10-15. Philadelphia (Pa.): AACR; 2021. Abstract nr 5133.

10.National Cancer Institute: https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2021/tebentafusp-uveal-melanoma-improves-survival

11.Immunocore press release: https://ir.immunocore.com/news-releases/news-release-details/immunocore-announces-us-food-and-drug-administration-and

12.Trisalus announcement: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trisalus-life-sciences-announces-first-130000215.html?guccounter=1

No one’s quite sure what causes uveal melanoma (UM). Unlike skin cancers, UM doesn’t seem to have any link to exposure to ultraviolet rays, although it’s most likely to strike people who are vulnerable to sun damage, like Caucasians and people with lighter eyes and lighter skin (but not lighter hair), and an inability to tan. Up to half of those affected by the disease will recover after treatment. In the other half, the cancer spreads from the eye – typically to the liver – and patient prognoses remain extremely poor despite extensive efforts to develop effective treatments.

“The median survival is probably about 2 years, and there are a number of papers out there that talk about life expectancy as short as 6 months,” said Marlana Orloff, MD, an associate professor of medical oncology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia.

But there is hope on the horizon, even if it’s not as near as patients would prefer. “Just over the last 5-10 years, we’ve gained a lot more knowledge about this disease as we try to understand how distinctly different it is, how mutations drive it, and how we can approach it using immunotherapy,” Dr. Orloff said. “I hope we’ll come up with better options for prolonging survival.” Indeed, multiple clinical trials are in the works despite the rarity of the disease.

Tracking uveal melanoma’s dangerous course

All melanomas, including UM, strike the melanocytes (cells) that provide pigment. According to a 2017 report¹ in the journal Eye, “uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular tumor in adults with a mean age-adjusted incidence of 5.1 cases per million per year. Tumors are located either in the iris (4%), ciliary body (6%), or choroid (90%) . … As in many other cancer indications, both early detection and early treatment could be critical for a positive long-term survival outcome in uveal melanoma.”

The median age of diagnosis is 59-62 years, the report says, although non-Whites seem to develop the disease earlier.

The vast majority of patients receive treatment by plaque brachytherapy via radioactive seeds. “It’s like brachytherapy of the prostate,” said medical oncologist Rino S. Seedor, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. “If the eye tumor is too big or invasive, they’ll cut out the eye.”

As many as 50% of patients will develop metastasis, sometimes within 2-3 years in those who have large tumors and high genetic risk, said ophthalmologist and radiation oncologist Miguel Materin, MD, of Duke University Eye Center, Durham, N.C. “There’s probably micrometastasis early in the development of the tumor,” he said. “The metastasis might develop before we or the patient knows there’s a tumor.”

Some physicians question the value of prognostic testing in patients who don’t yet show signs of metastasis, Dr. Materin said, because the findings can be grim.

Unlike his more cautious colleagues, Dr. Materin prefers to pursue testing, he said. Most patients agree to it. “It’s up to them to decide if they want to know if they have a bad prognosis,” he said, and the findings can be helpful to physicians because they provide useful genetic information about tumors.

Monitoring for liver metastasis is key

UM metastases are most likely to strike the liver, and prognoses are especially poor when they do. According to a 2019 analysis of 175 patients with metastatic UM in the Netherlands, “the presence of liver metastases is negatively associated with survival (hazard ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.08). … In 154 (88%) patients, the liver was affected, and only 3 patients were reported to have brain metastases.”²

As a result, physicians recommend close monitoring in patients with UM. Thomas Jefferson University’s Dr. Orloff uses tumor stages and genetic risk profiles to guide surveillance. “Very large tumors and/or monosomy 3 and 8q amplification or a Class 2 gene signature would suggest a higher-risk tumor,” she said. “For these patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 3 months for 2 years, CT of the chest every 6 months for 2 years, labs every 3 months for 2 years, then MRI every 6 months until year 5 with chest imaging yearly, then at 5 years everything yearly. For lower- or intermediate-risk patients we recommend MRI of the abdomen every 6 months for 5 years, chest imaging yearly, labs every 6 months, then at 5 years everything yearly.”

In the United States, patients with metastatic disease are typically sent to referral centers at institutions such as Duke, Yale (New Haven, Conn.), and Thomas Jefferson universities.

Metastasis treatments offer limited relief

There are no FDA-approved treatments for metastatic MU, and the treatments that physicians do use don’t seem to have much of an effect on life span. A 2019 study examined 73 patients with MU metastasis to the liver who were treated from 2004 to 2011 and 2012 to 2016. Among both cohorts, those who had no treatment lived nearly as long (median of 15 months) as those treated with local therapy (median of 18.7 months). Median survival for the entire population was 15 months (95% CI: 11–18 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the periods.³

However, there are signs that a move away from first-line chemotherapy in recent decades has led to longer life spans. Dr. Seedor led a 2018 study⁴ that compared two cohorts of MU patients with liver metastasis at her university: 98 patients from 1971 to 1993 (81% received systemic chemotherapy as their initial therapy) and 574 from 2000 to 2017 (they received various liver-directed initial treatments such as chemoembolization, drug-eluting beads, immunoembolization, and radioembolization).

The patients in the second group lived longer after treatment of initial UM than the first group (5.1 years vs. 3.3 years, P < .001) and after the development of liver metastasis (16.4 months vs. 4.8 months, P < .001). A 2020 follow-up study reported similar findings and noted that a “combination of liver-directed and newly developed systemic treatments may further improve the survival of these patients.”⁵

At Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, liver-directed therapy includes radioembolization, chemomobilization, and microwave ablation, Dr. Seedor said. “Which one we choose is based on how big the tumors are.”

Treatments in development could make advances

Physicians are working on several fronts to develop new treatments. A 2021 review of clinical trials found numerous trials regarding checkpoint inhibition, one devoted to a vaccine, and several involving checkpoint inhibitors. The review author notes that “the low mutational burden and poor immunogenicity of UM tumors may underlie poor responses and resistance to [immune checkpoint inhibitors] alone.”⁶

Earlier this year, grant-funded researchers reported encouraging news on the G protein inhibitor front. Their study found that FR900359, a selective inhibitor of the Gq/11/14 subfamily of heterotrimeric G proteins, could hold promise for “treating UM and potentially other diseases caused by constitutively active Gq/11.”⁷

In another 2021 study, this one with no reported funding, researchers explored the tumor microenvironment of UM and reported that their findings “provided a robust gene-based prognostic signature for predicting prognosis of UM patients and proposed a potential targeted therapy for preventing UM metastasis.”⁸

Experimental drug may add months of life

Physicians often recommend that patients take part in clinical trials. Earlier this year, researchers reported that a drug called tebentafusp – a bispecific fusion protein – slightly boosted metastatic UM survival in an open-label, phase 3 clinical trial when used as a first-line treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to tebentafusp, 1 of 2 immunotherapy drugs (ipilimumab or pembrolizumab), or the chemotherapy drug dacarbazine. Those who took tebentafusp vs. the other options lived longer with an estimated 1-year overall rate of 73.2% (95% CI: 66.3-78.9) vs. 57.5% (95% CI: 47.0-66.6), respectively. Fewer than 4% of those on tebentafusp needed to stop it because of adverse effects, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.⁹

Dr. Orloff is one of the coauthors of this study.

The National Cancer Institute provided more details about the industry-funded research and noted that median overall survival for patients who received the drug was 21.7 months vs. 16 months for the control group.

Not every patient is eligible for this treatment, however. A coauthor told the American Association for Cancer Research that “the major limitation of tebentafusp is that it can only be used in patients who have a specific HLA [human leukocyte antigen] type.” Patients must be HLA-A*0201-positive.¹⁰

In August 2021, the FDA granted priority review for tebentafusp.¹¹ And in September 2021, a company called TriSalus announced the first patient enrollment in a “clinical study evaluating the administration of SD-101, an investigational toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist in adults with metastatic uveal melanoma.”¹²

According to the company, the research “is designed to evaluate the intravascular administration of SD-101 into uveal melanoma liver metastasis lesions in combination with checkpoint inhibitors using the novel Pressure-Enabled Drug Delivery (PEDD) approach.” This strategy is “designed to overcome the inherent intratumoral pressure of solid tumors,” the company said.

Dr. Materin serves on a scientific advisory board for Castle Biosciences. Dr. Orloff is a consultant for Immunocore, which funded the tebentafusp study, and serves on a scientific advisory board for TriSalus. Dr. Seedor reports no disclosures.

References

1.Kaliki S and Shields C. Eye. 2017 Feb;31:241-57.

2.Jochems A et al. Cancers. 2019 July;11(7):1007.

3.Xu LT et al. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2019;5:323-32.

4.Seedor RS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 May;36(15_suppl):9592.

5.Seedor RS et al. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Jan 1;12(1):117.

6.Orloff M. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2021 July;7:168-76.

7.Onken MD et al. J Biol Chem. 2021;296:100403.

8.Lei S and Zhang Y. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 July;96:107816.

9.Piperno-Neumann S et al. Proceedings of the 112th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2021 April 10-15. Philadelphia (Pa.): AACR; 2021. Abstract nr 5133.

10.National Cancer Institute: https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2021/tebentafusp-uveal-melanoma-improves-survival

11.Immunocore press release: https://ir.immunocore.com/news-releases/news-release-details/immunocore-announces-us-food-and-drug-administration-and

12.Trisalus announcement: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trisalus-life-sciences-announces-first-130000215.html?guccounter=1