User login
Heart Failure the Most Common Complication of Atrial Fibrillation, Not Stroke
FROM BMJ
The lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) increased from 2000 to 2022 from one in four to one in three, a Danish population-based study of temporal trends found.
Heart failure was the most frequent complication linked to this arrhythmia, with a lifetime risk of two in five, twice that of stroke, according to investigators led by Nicklas Vinter, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Center for Health Service Research in the Department of Clinical Medicine at Aalborg University, Denmark.
Published in BMJ, the study found the lifetime risks of post-AF stroke, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction improved only modestly over time and remained high, with virtually no improvement in the lifetime risk of heart failure.
“Our work provides novel lifetime risk estimates that are instrumental in facilitating effective risk communication between patients and their physicians,” Dr. Vinter said in an interview. “The knowledge of risks from a lifelong perspective may serve as a motivator for patients to commence or intensify preventive efforts.” AF patients could, for example, adopt healthier lifestyles or adhere to prescribed medications, Dr. Vinter explained.
“The substantial lifetime risk of heart failure following atrial fibrillation necessitates heightened attention to its prevention and early detection,” Dr. Vinter said. “Furthermore, the high lifetime risk of stroke remains a critical complication, which highlights the importance of continuous attention to the initiation and maintenance of oral anticoagulation therapy.”
The Study
The cohort consisted of 3.5 million individuals (51.7% women) who did not have AF as of age 45 or older. These individuals were followed until incident AF, migration, death, or end of follow-up, whichever came first.
All 362,721 individuals with incident AF (53.6% men) but no prevalent complication were further followed over two time periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) until incident heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction.
Among the findings:
- Lifetime AF risk increased from 24.2% in 2000-2010 to 30.9% in 2011-2022, for a difference of 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%-6.8%).
- Lifetime AF risk rose across all subgroups over time, with a larger increase in men and individuals with heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
- Lifetime risk of heart failure was 42.9% in 2000-2010 and 42.1% in 2011-2022, for a difference of −0.8% (95% CI, −3.8% to 2.2%).
- The lifetime risks of post-AF stroke and of myocardial infarction decreased slightly between the two periods, from 22.4% to 19.9% for stroke (difference −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.2% to −0.7%) and from 13.7% to 9.8% for myocardial infarction (−3.9%, 95% CI, −5.3% to −2.4%). No differential decrease between men and women emerged.
“Our novel quantification of the long-term downstream consequences of atrial fibrillation highlights the critical need for treatments to further decrease stroke risk as well as for heart failure prevention strategies among patients with atrial fibrillation,” the Danish researchers wrote.
Offering an outsider’s perspective, John P. Higgins, MD, MBA, MPhil, a sports cardiologist at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said, “Think of atrial fibrillation as a barometer of underlying stress on the heart. When blood pressure is high, or a patient has underlying asymptomatic coronary artery disease or heart failure, they are more likely to have episodes of atrial fibrillation.”
According to Dr. Higgins, risk factors for AF are underappreciated in the United States and elsewhere, and primary care doctors need to be aware of them. “We should try to identify these risk factors and do primary prevention to improve risk factors to reduce the progression to heart failure and myocardial infarction and stroke. But lifelong prevention is even better, he added. “Doing things to prevent actually getting risk factors in the first place. So a healthy lifestyle including exercise, diet, hydration, sleep, relaxation, social contact, and a little sunlight might be the long-term keys and starting them at a young age, too.”
In an accompanying editorial, Jianhua Wu, PhD, a professor of biostatistics and health data science with the Wolfson Institute of Population Health at Queen Mary University of London, and a colleague, cited the study’s robust observational research and called the analysis noteworthy for its quantification of the long-term risks of post-AF sequelae. They cautioned, however, that its grouping into two 10-year periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) came at the cost of losing temporal resolution. They also called out the lack of reporting on the ethnic composition of the study population, a factor that influences lifetime AF risk, and the absence of subgroup analysis by socioeconomic status, which affects incidence and outcomes.
The editorialists noted that while interventions to prevent stroke dominated AF research and guidelines during the study time period, no evidence suggests these interventions can prevent incident heart failure. “Alignment of both randomised clinical trials and guidelines to better reflect the needs of the real-world population with atrial fibrillation is necessary because further improvements to patient prognosis are likely to require a broader perspective on atrial fibrillation management beyond prevention of stroke,” they wrote.
In the meantime this study “challenges research priorities and guideline design, and raises critical questions for the research and clinical communities about how the growing burden of atrial fibrillation can be stopped,” they wrote.
This work was supported by the Danish Cardiovascular Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and The Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Vinter has been an advisory board member and consultant for AstraZeneca and has an institutional research grant from BMS/Pfizer unrelated to the current study. He reported personal consulting fees from BMS and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed research support from and/or consulting work for private industry, as well as grants from not-for-profit research-funding organizations. Dr. Higgins had no competing interest to declare. The editorial writers had no relevant financial interests to declare. Dr. Wu is supported by Barts Charity.
FROM BMJ
The lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) increased from 2000 to 2022 from one in four to one in three, a Danish population-based study of temporal trends found.
Heart failure was the most frequent complication linked to this arrhythmia, with a lifetime risk of two in five, twice that of stroke, according to investigators led by Nicklas Vinter, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Center for Health Service Research in the Department of Clinical Medicine at Aalborg University, Denmark.
Published in BMJ, the study found the lifetime risks of post-AF stroke, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction improved only modestly over time and remained high, with virtually no improvement in the lifetime risk of heart failure.
“Our work provides novel lifetime risk estimates that are instrumental in facilitating effective risk communication between patients and their physicians,” Dr. Vinter said in an interview. “The knowledge of risks from a lifelong perspective may serve as a motivator for patients to commence or intensify preventive efforts.” AF patients could, for example, adopt healthier lifestyles or adhere to prescribed medications, Dr. Vinter explained.
“The substantial lifetime risk of heart failure following atrial fibrillation necessitates heightened attention to its prevention and early detection,” Dr. Vinter said. “Furthermore, the high lifetime risk of stroke remains a critical complication, which highlights the importance of continuous attention to the initiation and maintenance of oral anticoagulation therapy.”
The Study
The cohort consisted of 3.5 million individuals (51.7% women) who did not have AF as of age 45 or older. These individuals were followed until incident AF, migration, death, or end of follow-up, whichever came first.
All 362,721 individuals with incident AF (53.6% men) but no prevalent complication were further followed over two time periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) until incident heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction.
Among the findings:
- Lifetime AF risk increased from 24.2% in 2000-2010 to 30.9% in 2011-2022, for a difference of 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%-6.8%).
- Lifetime AF risk rose across all subgroups over time, with a larger increase in men and individuals with heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
- Lifetime risk of heart failure was 42.9% in 2000-2010 and 42.1% in 2011-2022, for a difference of −0.8% (95% CI, −3.8% to 2.2%).
- The lifetime risks of post-AF stroke and of myocardial infarction decreased slightly between the two periods, from 22.4% to 19.9% for stroke (difference −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.2% to −0.7%) and from 13.7% to 9.8% for myocardial infarction (−3.9%, 95% CI, −5.3% to −2.4%). No differential decrease between men and women emerged.
“Our novel quantification of the long-term downstream consequences of atrial fibrillation highlights the critical need for treatments to further decrease stroke risk as well as for heart failure prevention strategies among patients with atrial fibrillation,” the Danish researchers wrote.
Offering an outsider’s perspective, John P. Higgins, MD, MBA, MPhil, a sports cardiologist at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said, “Think of atrial fibrillation as a barometer of underlying stress on the heart. When blood pressure is high, or a patient has underlying asymptomatic coronary artery disease or heart failure, they are more likely to have episodes of atrial fibrillation.”
According to Dr. Higgins, risk factors for AF are underappreciated in the United States and elsewhere, and primary care doctors need to be aware of them. “We should try to identify these risk factors and do primary prevention to improve risk factors to reduce the progression to heart failure and myocardial infarction and stroke. But lifelong prevention is even better, he added. “Doing things to prevent actually getting risk factors in the first place. So a healthy lifestyle including exercise, diet, hydration, sleep, relaxation, social contact, and a little sunlight might be the long-term keys and starting them at a young age, too.”
In an accompanying editorial, Jianhua Wu, PhD, a professor of biostatistics and health data science with the Wolfson Institute of Population Health at Queen Mary University of London, and a colleague, cited the study’s robust observational research and called the analysis noteworthy for its quantification of the long-term risks of post-AF sequelae. They cautioned, however, that its grouping into two 10-year periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) came at the cost of losing temporal resolution. They also called out the lack of reporting on the ethnic composition of the study population, a factor that influences lifetime AF risk, and the absence of subgroup analysis by socioeconomic status, which affects incidence and outcomes.
The editorialists noted that while interventions to prevent stroke dominated AF research and guidelines during the study time period, no evidence suggests these interventions can prevent incident heart failure. “Alignment of both randomised clinical trials and guidelines to better reflect the needs of the real-world population with atrial fibrillation is necessary because further improvements to patient prognosis are likely to require a broader perspective on atrial fibrillation management beyond prevention of stroke,” they wrote.
In the meantime this study “challenges research priorities and guideline design, and raises critical questions for the research and clinical communities about how the growing burden of atrial fibrillation can be stopped,” they wrote.
This work was supported by the Danish Cardiovascular Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and The Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Vinter has been an advisory board member and consultant for AstraZeneca and has an institutional research grant from BMS/Pfizer unrelated to the current study. He reported personal consulting fees from BMS and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed research support from and/or consulting work for private industry, as well as grants from not-for-profit research-funding organizations. Dr. Higgins had no competing interest to declare. The editorial writers had no relevant financial interests to declare. Dr. Wu is supported by Barts Charity.
FROM BMJ
The lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) increased from 2000 to 2022 from one in four to one in three, a Danish population-based study of temporal trends found.
Heart failure was the most frequent complication linked to this arrhythmia, with a lifetime risk of two in five, twice that of stroke, according to investigators led by Nicklas Vinter, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Center for Health Service Research in the Department of Clinical Medicine at Aalborg University, Denmark.
Published in BMJ, the study found the lifetime risks of post-AF stroke, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction improved only modestly over time and remained high, with virtually no improvement in the lifetime risk of heart failure.
“Our work provides novel lifetime risk estimates that are instrumental in facilitating effective risk communication between patients and their physicians,” Dr. Vinter said in an interview. “The knowledge of risks from a lifelong perspective may serve as a motivator for patients to commence or intensify preventive efforts.” AF patients could, for example, adopt healthier lifestyles or adhere to prescribed medications, Dr. Vinter explained.
“The substantial lifetime risk of heart failure following atrial fibrillation necessitates heightened attention to its prevention and early detection,” Dr. Vinter said. “Furthermore, the high lifetime risk of stroke remains a critical complication, which highlights the importance of continuous attention to the initiation and maintenance of oral anticoagulation therapy.”
The Study
The cohort consisted of 3.5 million individuals (51.7% women) who did not have AF as of age 45 or older. These individuals were followed until incident AF, migration, death, or end of follow-up, whichever came first.
All 362,721 individuals with incident AF (53.6% men) but no prevalent complication were further followed over two time periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) until incident heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction.
Among the findings:
- Lifetime AF risk increased from 24.2% in 2000-2010 to 30.9% in 2011-2022, for a difference of 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%-6.8%).
- Lifetime AF risk rose across all subgroups over time, with a larger increase in men and individuals with heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
- Lifetime risk of heart failure was 42.9% in 2000-2010 and 42.1% in 2011-2022, for a difference of −0.8% (95% CI, −3.8% to 2.2%).
- The lifetime risks of post-AF stroke and of myocardial infarction decreased slightly between the two periods, from 22.4% to 19.9% for stroke (difference −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.2% to −0.7%) and from 13.7% to 9.8% for myocardial infarction (−3.9%, 95% CI, −5.3% to −2.4%). No differential decrease between men and women emerged.
“Our novel quantification of the long-term downstream consequences of atrial fibrillation highlights the critical need for treatments to further decrease stroke risk as well as for heart failure prevention strategies among patients with atrial fibrillation,” the Danish researchers wrote.
Offering an outsider’s perspective, John P. Higgins, MD, MBA, MPhil, a sports cardiologist at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said, “Think of atrial fibrillation as a barometer of underlying stress on the heart. When blood pressure is high, or a patient has underlying asymptomatic coronary artery disease or heart failure, they are more likely to have episodes of atrial fibrillation.”
According to Dr. Higgins, risk factors for AF are underappreciated in the United States and elsewhere, and primary care doctors need to be aware of them. “We should try to identify these risk factors and do primary prevention to improve risk factors to reduce the progression to heart failure and myocardial infarction and stroke. But lifelong prevention is even better, he added. “Doing things to prevent actually getting risk factors in the first place. So a healthy lifestyle including exercise, diet, hydration, sleep, relaxation, social contact, and a little sunlight might be the long-term keys and starting them at a young age, too.”
In an accompanying editorial, Jianhua Wu, PhD, a professor of biostatistics and health data science with the Wolfson Institute of Population Health at Queen Mary University of London, and a colleague, cited the study’s robust observational research and called the analysis noteworthy for its quantification of the long-term risks of post-AF sequelae. They cautioned, however, that its grouping into two 10-year periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) came at the cost of losing temporal resolution. They also called out the lack of reporting on the ethnic composition of the study population, a factor that influences lifetime AF risk, and the absence of subgroup analysis by socioeconomic status, which affects incidence and outcomes.
The editorialists noted that while interventions to prevent stroke dominated AF research and guidelines during the study time period, no evidence suggests these interventions can prevent incident heart failure. “Alignment of both randomised clinical trials and guidelines to better reflect the needs of the real-world population with atrial fibrillation is necessary because further improvements to patient prognosis are likely to require a broader perspective on atrial fibrillation management beyond prevention of stroke,” they wrote.
In the meantime this study “challenges research priorities and guideline design, and raises critical questions for the research and clinical communities about how the growing burden of atrial fibrillation can be stopped,” they wrote.
This work was supported by the Danish Cardiovascular Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and The Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Vinter has been an advisory board member and consultant for AstraZeneca and has an institutional research grant from BMS/Pfizer unrelated to the current study. He reported personal consulting fees from BMS and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed research support from and/or consulting work for private industry, as well as grants from not-for-profit research-funding organizations. Dr. Higgins had no competing interest to declare. The editorial writers had no relevant financial interests to declare. Dr. Wu is supported by Barts Charity.
Port-Wine Birthmarks: Shorter Interval Laser Treatments Show Promise in Infants
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Early intervention of PWB in infants can significantly improve outcomes, and some studies suggest shorter intervals between laser treatments may be more effective. While laser treatment with PDL is the gold standard, the optimal treatment interval has not been determined.
- Researchers evaluated the records of 10 infants with PWB who received weekly PDL treatments from 2022 to 2023 at a single center. Treatment was initiated when the infants were 6 months old or younger, with the median age at the first treatment being 4 weeks. Of the 10 infants, eight had Fitzpatrick skin types I-III and two had skin type IV.
- Two dermatologists assessed photographs taken before and after laser treatment, and the primary outcome was the percentage improvement of PWB.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 10 patients, six achieved near-total (76%-95%) clearance, and one achieved total (96%-100%) clearance of PWB at a mean of 2 months after the first treatment.
- Marked improvement (51%-75%) in PWB was observed in the remaining three patients, who achieved near-total clearance with additional treatments.
- The median duration of treatment was 2 months (range, 0.2-5.1), and a median of eight treatments (range, 2-20) were needed to achieve near total or total clearance.
- No adverse events were reported, including pigmentary changes, scarring, burns, erosions, or infections.
IN PRACTICE:
The outcomes in the case series, the authors concluded, “are compelling and warrant attention and further investigation into the possibility that this novel and decreased treatment interval of 1 week ... is associated with potential improvement in outcomes and shorter overall treatment duration.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Shirin Bajaj, MD, of the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York, where the infants were treated, and was published online on April 17, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
A small sample size and the lack of a comparison arm limited the ability to draw any conclusions or make treatment recommendations based on the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Early intervention of PWB in infants can significantly improve outcomes, and some studies suggest shorter intervals between laser treatments may be more effective. While laser treatment with PDL is the gold standard, the optimal treatment interval has not been determined.
- Researchers evaluated the records of 10 infants with PWB who received weekly PDL treatments from 2022 to 2023 at a single center. Treatment was initiated when the infants were 6 months old or younger, with the median age at the first treatment being 4 weeks. Of the 10 infants, eight had Fitzpatrick skin types I-III and two had skin type IV.
- Two dermatologists assessed photographs taken before and after laser treatment, and the primary outcome was the percentage improvement of PWB.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 10 patients, six achieved near-total (76%-95%) clearance, and one achieved total (96%-100%) clearance of PWB at a mean of 2 months after the first treatment.
- Marked improvement (51%-75%) in PWB was observed in the remaining three patients, who achieved near-total clearance with additional treatments.
- The median duration of treatment was 2 months (range, 0.2-5.1), and a median of eight treatments (range, 2-20) were needed to achieve near total or total clearance.
- No adverse events were reported, including pigmentary changes, scarring, burns, erosions, or infections.
IN PRACTICE:
The outcomes in the case series, the authors concluded, “are compelling and warrant attention and further investigation into the possibility that this novel and decreased treatment interval of 1 week ... is associated with potential improvement in outcomes and shorter overall treatment duration.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Shirin Bajaj, MD, of the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York, where the infants were treated, and was published online on April 17, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
A small sample size and the lack of a comparison arm limited the ability to draw any conclusions or make treatment recommendations based on the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Early intervention of PWB in infants can significantly improve outcomes, and some studies suggest shorter intervals between laser treatments may be more effective. While laser treatment with PDL is the gold standard, the optimal treatment interval has not been determined.
- Researchers evaluated the records of 10 infants with PWB who received weekly PDL treatments from 2022 to 2023 at a single center. Treatment was initiated when the infants were 6 months old or younger, with the median age at the first treatment being 4 weeks. Of the 10 infants, eight had Fitzpatrick skin types I-III and two had skin type IV.
- Two dermatologists assessed photographs taken before and after laser treatment, and the primary outcome was the percentage improvement of PWB.
TAKEAWAY:
- Of the 10 patients, six achieved near-total (76%-95%) clearance, and one achieved total (96%-100%) clearance of PWB at a mean of 2 months after the first treatment.
- Marked improvement (51%-75%) in PWB was observed in the remaining three patients, who achieved near-total clearance with additional treatments.
- The median duration of treatment was 2 months (range, 0.2-5.1), and a median of eight treatments (range, 2-20) were needed to achieve near total or total clearance.
- No adverse events were reported, including pigmentary changes, scarring, burns, erosions, or infections.
IN PRACTICE:
The outcomes in the case series, the authors concluded, “are compelling and warrant attention and further investigation into the possibility that this novel and decreased treatment interval of 1 week ... is associated with potential improvement in outcomes and shorter overall treatment duration.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Shirin Bajaj, MD, of the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York, where the infants were treated, and was published online on April 17, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
A small sample size and the lack of a comparison arm limited the ability to draw any conclusions or make treatment recommendations based on the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Integrating Telemedicine for HCV With Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Works
People with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have hepatitis C virus (HCV) were twice as likely to be treated and cured of HCV if they received facilitated telemedicine treatment within their opioid treatment program than if they were referred for off-site treatment, the results of a new study showed.
In addition, among cured patients, illicit drug use fell significantly, and there were few reinfections, reported the researchers, led by Andrew Talal, MD, MPH, with the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo.
The study was published online in JAMA.
HCV is a major public health concern, especially among people with OUD. Geographic and logistical barriers often prevent this underserved population from accessing treatment; however, telemedicine has the potential to overcome these obstacles.
In a prospective cluster randomized clinical trial, Dr. Talal and colleagues assessed the impact of embedding facilitated telemedicine for HCV care into 12 opioid treatment programs in New York State.
They studied 602 HCV-infected adults (61% male; 51% White) with OUD. Of these, 290 (mean age, 47.1 years) were enrolled in facilitated telemedicine programs onsite, and 312 (mean age, 48.9 years) received an off-site referral (usual care).
Telemedicine participants had an initial telemedicine encounter facilitated by study case managers onsite who also administered a blood test. The telemedicine clinician subsequently evaluated participants and ordered direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medication that was delivered to the opioid treatment program monthly (as refills required) and dispensed along with methadone.
In the telemedicine group, 268 of 290 individuals (92.4%) initiated HCV treatment compared with 126 of 312 (40.4%) in the referral group.
Participants in the telemedicine group were also seen sooner and started treatment faster.
The interval between screening and initial appointments was 14 days with telemedicine vs 18 days with a referral (P = .04). The time between the initial visit and DAA initiation was 49.9 days with telemedicine vs 123.5 days with a referral (P < .001).
Intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly higher HCV cure rates with telemedicine than with referral (90.3% vs 39.4%, respectively). Similarly, the observed cure rates were also higher in the telemedicine group (84.8% vs 34.0%).
Sustained virologic response was durable, with only 13 reinfections (incidence, 2.5 per 100 person-years) occurring during the 2-year follow-up period, the researchers reported.
In addition, illicit drug use decreased significantly among cured patients in both the telemedicine group (P < .001) and the referral group (P = .001). Adults in both groups rated healthcare delivery satisfaction as high or very high.
“Our study demonstrates how telemedicine successfully integrates medical and behavioral treatment,” Dr. Talal said in a statement.
The intervention “builds patient-clinician trust across the screen, and significant decreases in substance use were observed in cured participants with minimal HCV reinfections,” the study team wrote.
Support for this research was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and by the Troup Fund of the Kaleida Health Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
People with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have hepatitis C virus (HCV) were twice as likely to be treated and cured of HCV if they received facilitated telemedicine treatment within their opioid treatment program than if they were referred for off-site treatment, the results of a new study showed.
In addition, among cured patients, illicit drug use fell significantly, and there were few reinfections, reported the researchers, led by Andrew Talal, MD, MPH, with the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo.
The study was published online in JAMA.
HCV is a major public health concern, especially among people with OUD. Geographic and logistical barriers often prevent this underserved population from accessing treatment; however, telemedicine has the potential to overcome these obstacles.
In a prospective cluster randomized clinical trial, Dr. Talal and colleagues assessed the impact of embedding facilitated telemedicine for HCV care into 12 opioid treatment programs in New York State.
They studied 602 HCV-infected adults (61% male; 51% White) with OUD. Of these, 290 (mean age, 47.1 years) were enrolled in facilitated telemedicine programs onsite, and 312 (mean age, 48.9 years) received an off-site referral (usual care).
Telemedicine participants had an initial telemedicine encounter facilitated by study case managers onsite who also administered a blood test. The telemedicine clinician subsequently evaluated participants and ordered direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medication that was delivered to the opioid treatment program monthly (as refills required) and dispensed along with methadone.
In the telemedicine group, 268 of 290 individuals (92.4%) initiated HCV treatment compared with 126 of 312 (40.4%) in the referral group.
Participants in the telemedicine group were also seen sooner and started treatment faster.
The interval between screening and initial appointments was 14 days with telemedicine vs 18 days with a referral (P = .04). The time between the initial visit and DAA initiation was 49.9 days with telemedicine vs 123.5 days with a referral (P < .001).
Intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly higher HCV cure rates with telemedicine than with referral (90.3% vs 39.4%, respectively). Similarly, the observed cure rates were also higher in the telemedicine group (84.8% vs 34.0%).
Sustained virologic response was durable, with only 13 reinfections (incidence, 2.5 per 100 person-years) occurring during the 2-year follow-up period, the researchers reported.
In addition, illicit drug use decreased significantly among cured patients in both the telemedicine group (P < .001) and the referral group (P = .001). Adults in both groups rated healthcare delivery satisfaction as high or very high.
“Our study demonstrates how telemedicine successfully integrates medical and behavioral treatment,” Dr. Talal said in a statement.
The intervention “builds patient-clinician trust across the screen, and significant decreases in substance use were observed in cured participants with minimal HCV reinfections,” the study team wrote.
Support for this research was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and by the Troup Fund of the Kaleida Health Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
People with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have hepatitis C virus (HCV) were twice as likely to be treated and cured of HCV if they received facilitated telemedicine treatment within their opioid treatment program than if they were referred for off-site treatment, the results of a new study showed.
In addition, among cured patients, illicit drug use fell significantly, and there were few reinfections, reported the researchers, led by Andrew Talal, MD, MPH, with the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo.
The study was published online in JAMA.
HCV is a major public health concern, especially among people with OUD. Geographic and logistical barriers often prevent this underserved population from accessing treatment; however, telemedicine has the potential to overcome these obstacles.
In a prospective cluster randomized clinical trial, Dr. Talal and colleagues assessed the impact of embedding facilitated telemedicine for HCV care into 12 opioid treatment programs in New York State.
They studied 602 HCV-infected adults (61% male; 51% White) with OUD. Of these, 290 (mean age, 47.1 years) were enrolled in facilitated telemedicine programs onsite, and 312 (mean age, 48.9 years) received an off-site referral (usual care).
Telemedicine participants had an initial telemedicine encounter facilitated by study case managers onsite who also administered a blood test. The telemedicine clinician subsequently evaluated participants and ordered direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medication that was delivered to the opioid treatment program monthly (as refills required) and dispensed along with methadone.
In the telemedicine group, 268 of 290 individuals (92.4%) initiated HCV treatment compared with 126 of 312 (40.4%) in the referral group.
Participants in the telemedicine group were also seen sooner and started treatment faster.
The interval between screening and initial appointments was 14 days with telemedicine vs 18 days with a referral (P = .04). The time between the initial visit and DAA initiation was 49.9 days with telemedicine vs 123.5 days with a referral (P < .001).
Intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly higher HCV cure rates with telemedicine than with referral (90.3% vs 39.4%, respectively). Similarly, the observed cure rates were also higher in the telemedicine group (84.8% vs 34.0%).
Sustained virologic response was durable, with only 13 reinfections (incidence, 2.5 per 100 person-years) occurring during the 2-year follow-up period, the researchers reported.
In addition, illicit drug use decreased significantly among cured patients in both the telemedicine group (P < .001) and the referral group (P = .001). Adults in both groups rated healthcare delivery satisfaction as high or very high.
“Our study demonstrates how telemedicine successfully integrates medical and behavioral treatment,” Dr. Talal said in a statement.
The intervention “builds patient-clinician trust across the screen, and significant decreases in substance use were observed in cured participants with minimal HCV reinfections,” the study team wrote.
Support for this research was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and by the Troup Fund of the Kaleida Health Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM JAMA
The Fascinating Way to Measure Glucose With a Phone’s Compass
Here’s a new direction for smartphones in healthcare.
“We’re just at this point demonstrating this new way of sensing that we hope [will be] very accessible and very portable,” said Gary Zabow, PhD, a group leader in the applied physics division at NIST who supervised the research.
In a proof-of-concept study, the researchers measured glucose levels in sangria, pinot grigio, and champagne. The detection limit reached micromolar concentrations — on par with or better than some widely used glucose sensors, such as continuous glucose monitors. They also accurately measured the pH levels of coffee, orange juice, and root beer.
More tests are needed to confirm the method works in biological fluids, so it could be a while before it’s available for clinical or commercial use.
Still, the prospect is “exciting,” said Aydogan Ozcan, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study. “It might enable new capabilities for advanced sensing applications in field settings or even at home.”
The advance builds on growing research using smartphones to put powerful medical devices in patients’ hands. A new AI-powered app can use a smartphone camera to detect skin cancer, while other apps administer cognitive tests to detect dementia. Smartphone cameras can even be harnessed for “advanced optical microscopes and sensors to the level where we could even see and detect individual DNA molecules with inexpensive optical attachments,” Dr. Ozcan said. More than six billion people worldwide own a smartphone.
The compass inside smartphones is a magnetometer — it measures magnetic fields. Normally it detects the earth’s magnetic fields, but it can also detect small, nearby magnets and changes in those magnets’ positions.
The researchers embedded a small magnet inside a strip of “smart hydrogel — a piece of material that expands or contracts” when immersed in a solution, said Dr. Zabow.
As the hydrogel gets bigger or smaller, it moves the magnet, Dr. Zabow explained. For example, if the hydrogel is designed to expand when the solution is acidic or contract when it’s basic, it can move the magnet closer or farther from the phone’s magnetometer, providing an indicator of pH. For glucose, the hydrogel expands or contracts depending on the concentration of sugar in the liquid.
With some calibration and coding to translate that reading into a number, “you can effectively read out glucose or pH,” Dr. Zabow said.
Only a small strip of hydrogel is needed, “like a pH test strip that you use for a pool,” said first study author Mark Ferris, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at NIST.
Like a pool pH test strip, this test is meant to be “easy to use, and at that kind of price,” Dr. Ferris said. “It’s supposed to be something that’s cheap and disposable.” Each pH hydrogel strip is about 3 cents, and glucose strips are 16 cents, Dr. Ferris estimated. In bulk, those prices could go down.
Next the team plans to test the strips with biological fluids. But complex fluids like blood could pose a challenge, as other molecules present could react with the strip and affect the results. “It may be that you need to tweak the chemistry of the hydrogel to make sure it is really specific to one biomolecule and there is no interference from other biomolecules,” Dr. Zabow said.
The technique could be adapted to detect other biomarkers or molecules, the researchers said. It could also be used to check for chemical contaminants in tap, lake, or stream water.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Here’s a new direction for smartphones in healthcare.
“We’re just at this point demonstrating this new way of sensing that we hope [will be] very accessible and very portable,” said Gary Zabow, PhD, a group leader in the applied physics division at NIST who supervised the research.
In a proof-of-concept study, the researchers measured glucose levels in sangria, pinot grigio, and champagne. The detection limit reached micromolar concentrations — on par with or better than some widely used glucose sensors, such as continuous glucose monitors. They also accurately measured the pH levels of coffee, orange juice, and root beer.
More tests are needed to confirm the method works in biological fluids, so it could be a while before it’s available for clinical or commercial use.
Still, the prospect is “exciting,” said Aydogan Ozcan, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study. “It might enable new capabilities for advanced sensing applications in field settings or even at home.”
The advance builds on growing research using smartphones to put powerful medical devices in patients’ hands. A new AI-powered app can use a smartphone camera to detect skin cancer, while other apps administer cognitive tests to detect dementia. Smartphone cameras can even be harnessed for “advanced optical microscopes and sensors to the level where we could even see and detect individual DNA molecules with inexpensive optical attachments,” Dr. Ozcan said. More than six billion people worldwide own a smartphone.
The compass inside smartphones is a magnetometer — it measures magnetic fields. Normally it detects the earth’s magnetic fields, but it can also detect small, nearby magnets and changes in those magnets’ positions.
The researchers embedded a small magnet inside a strip of “smart hydrogel — a piece of material that expands or contracts” when immersed in a solution, said Dr. Zabow.
As the hydrogel gets bigger or smaller, it moves the magnet, Dr. Zabow explained. For example, if the hydrogel is designed to expand when the solution is acidic or contract when it’s basic, it can move the magnet closer or farther from the phone’s magnetometer, providing an indicator of pH. For glucose, the hydrogel expands or contracts depending on the concentration of sugar in the liquid.
With some calibration and coding to translate that reading into a number, “you can effectively read out glucose or pH,” Dr. Zabow said.
Only a small strip of hydrogel is needed, “like a pH test strip that you use for a pool,” said first study author Mark Ferris, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at NIST.
Like a pool pH test strip, this test is meant to be “easy to use, and at that kind of price,” Dr. Ferris said. “It’s supposed to be something that’s cheap and disposable.” Each pH hydrogel strip is about 3 cents, and glucose strips are 16 cents, Dr. Ferris estimated. In bulk, those prices could go down.
Next the team plans to test the strips with biological fluids. But complex fluids like blood could pose a challenge, as other molecules present could react with the strip and affect the results. “It may be that you need to tweak the chemistry of the hydrogel to make sure it is really specific to one biomolecule and there is no interference from other biomolecules,” Dr. Zabow said.
The technique could be adapted to detect other biomarkers or molecules, the researchers said. It could also be used to check for chemical contaminants in tap, lake, or stream water.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Here’s a new direction for smartphones in healthcare.
“We’re just at this point demonstrating this new way of sensing that we hope [will be] very accessible and very portable,” said Gary Zabow, PhD, a group leader in the applied physics division at NIST who supervised the research.
In a proof-of-concept study, the researchers measured glucose levels in sangria, pinot grigio, and champagne. The detection limit reached micromolar concentrations — on par with or better than some widely used glucose sensors, such as continuous glucose monitors. They also accurately measured the pH levels of coffee, orange juice, and root beer.
More tests are needed to confirm the method works in biological fluids, so it could be a while before it’s available for clinical or commercial use.
Still, the prospect is “exciting,” said Aydogan Ozcan, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study. “It might enable new capabilities for advanced sensing applications in field settings or even at home.”
The advance builds on growing research using smartphones to put powerful medical devices in patients’ hands. A new AI-powered app can use a smartphone camera to detect skin cancer, while other apps administer cognitive tests to detect dementia. Smartphone cameras can even be harnessed for “advanced optical microscopes and sensors to the level where we could even see and detect individual DNA molecules with inexpensive optical attachments,” Dr. Ozcan said. More than six billion people worldwide own a smartphone.
The compass inside smartphones is a magnetometer — it measures magnetic fields. Normally it detects the earth’s magnetic fields, but it can also detect small, nearby magnets and changes in those magnets’ positions.
The researchers embedded a small magnet inside a strip of “smart hydrogel — a piece of material that expands or contracts” when immersed in a solution, said Dr. Zabow.
As the hydrogel gets bigger or smaller, it moves the magnet, Dr. Zabow explained. For example, if the hydrogel is designed to expand when the solution is acidic or contract when it’s basic, it can move the magnet closer or farther from the phone’s magnetometer, providing an indicator of pH. For glucose, the hydrogel expands or contracts depending on the concentration of sugar in the liquid.
With some calibration and coding to translate that reading into a number, “you can effectively read out glucose or pH,” Dr. Zabow said.
Only a small strip of hydrogel is needed, “like a pH test strip that you use for a pool,” said first study author Mark Ferris, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at NIST.
Like a pool pH test strip, this test is meant to be “easy to use, and at that kind of price,” Dr. Ferris said. “It’s supposed to be something that’s cheap and disposable.” Each pH hydrogel strip is about 3 cents, and glucose strips are 16 cents, Dr. Ferris estimated. In bulk, those prices could go down.
Next the team plans to test the strips with biological fluids. But complex fluids like blood could pose a challenge, as other molecules present could react with the strip and affect the results. “It may be that you need to tweak the chemistry of the hydrogel to make sure it is really specific to one biomolecule and there is no interference from other biomolecules,” Dr. Zabow said.
The technique could be adapted to detect other biomarkers or molecules, the researchers said. It could also be used to check for chemical contaminants in tap, lake, or stream water.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Shared Rheumatology-Primary Care Telehealth Model Brings Services to Rural Areas
Even in large urban areas there aren’t enough rheumatologists to go around, and as a 2015 American College of Rheumatology workforce study projected, the number of rheumatology providers is expected to drop by 25% by the year 2030, while the demand for patient care in rheumatology is expected to increase by more than 100%.
The shortage of rheumatology care is even more acute in rural areas, but as a pilot project supported by the Arthritis Foundation shows, linking rheumatologists to health centers in remote and underserved locations via telehealth can help community providers improve care for patients with rheumatic diseases.
The novel collaborative model was described by Alfredo Rivadeneira, MD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
“We found that this pilot, a unique partnership in North Carolina, improves access to rheumatology care to a rural population with high satisfaction scores. It underlines the importance of seeking collaboration with community providers when implementing these programs. It also allows timely specialty care and alleviates the barriers relating to transportation, insurance coverage, and telecommunication challenges,” he said at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.
Too Many Patients, Too Few Rheumatologists
Access to health is challenging for people from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic backgrounds, especially in states such as North Carolina, where 40% of the population lives in rural counties, which have higher age-adjusted mortality than more densely populated areas of the state, Dr. Rivadeneira said.
In addition, 42% of the North Carolina residents seen at the state’s 42 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) don’t have health insurance, which is higher than the average of 23% uninsured seen at FQHCs in other states.
There are currently approximately 250 rheumatology providers in North Carolina, the majority of whom work in the states’ three academic medical centers. Currently, North Carolina has an estimated population of 10 million people, which is projected to increase to 11.7 million by 2030. And by 2030, 20% of North Carolinians will be aged ≥ 65 years, Dr. Rivadeneira said, highlighting the need for expanded rheumatology care.
Although telehealth services could be an option for expanding services to underserved communities, only 14 of the 42 FQHCs in the state use telehealth and only on a limited basis because it is not sufficiently reimbursed.
Rivadeneira pointed to a 2022 study that showed how patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients in North Carolina were less likely to use online patient portals if they lived in rural areas; came from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds; were older, men, had lower economic status (Medicaid enrollment or uninsured); or spoke a language other than English as their primary tongue.
Pilot Project
To help smooth out some of the above-mentioned disparities, Dr. Rivadeneira and colleagues, in collaboration with the Arthritis Foundation, started a pilot project in 2022 designed to enhance access to rheumatology specialty care for rural residents through a shared telehealth model between the UNC rheumatology clinic and two separate Piedmont Health Services clinics in rural areas.
The project includes tailored educational sessions designed to empower Piedmont Health Services providers for evaluating and managing patients with rheumatic diseases.
Patients with prior diagnoses of rheumatologic diseases who were lost to rheumatology specialty care follow-up and those with new rheumatic symptoms who had transportation and/or financial barriers to receiving specialty care are triaged to the shared telemedicine visits.
Providers conduct monthly clinic sessions via shared visits between the on-site Piedmont Health Services provider and patients, with off-site UNC rheumatology fellows and attending physicians connected virtually.
The educational component of the project includes monthly didactic sessions offered to all Piedmont Health Services providers across 12 locations.
The topics that were chosen cover the most common rheumatologic conditions seen by community providers, including evaluating pain from a rheumatology perspective; using antinuclear antibodies and other serologies; evaluating and managing rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, gout, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and osteoarthritis; and methotrexate management and complications.
“One of the aspects of this pilot that I want to emphasize is the importance of having the generalists with the patient, relaying the objective data, especially the physical exam, and that’s one of the great features of this model. It also provides a stable platform for telehealth to the individual patients, as many of these patients don’t have access to health technology,” Dr. Rivadeneira said.
Thumbs Up
Both patients and general practitioners in the Piedmont Health system expressed high degrees of satisfaction with the shared telehealth program. Patients especially liked the time they saved not having to travel to see a specialist, and a large majority agreed that the visits were “as good as” in-person visits, felt that their concerns were addressed appropriately during the virtual visit, expressed overall satisfaction, and said they would like to continue virtual visits.
Physicians expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the rheumatology didactic sessions and said that the sessions enhanced their knowledge of evaluating and managing or co-managing rheumatologic diseases, as well as helping them to feel comfortable about applying this knowledge to patient care.
Dr. Rivadeneira noted that the pilot study was limited by low levels of Piedmont Health Services physician participation (two out of 45 total participated in shared visits), and only three or four providers typically took part in each didactic session.
How to Improve?
In a follow-up study, the investigators asked Piedmont Health Services providers about barriers to rheumatology care, the most common and challenging diseases they encountered, how to improve the didactic components, and their perspectives on the pilot and how it may have affected referral patterns to rheumatology care.
The providers identified the cost of diagnostic evaluations and medications, transportation, long wait times, and language as the main barriers to patient access of rheumatology care.
“Additionally, over a third of them encountered patients on a weekly basis that were overdue for a visit with a rheumatologist,” Dr. Rivadeneira said.
“Direct participation in the physical exam by the primary care provider enhances greatly, in my opinion, these telehealth visits. Focused didactic sessions, electronic handouts and/or quick access guides could empower more rural community providers to manage rheumatic diseases,” he concluded.
In the Q&A following the presentation, Laura Cappelli, MD, MHS, MS, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, asked Dr. Rivadeneira how rheumatologists involved felt about the program and whether his team did any surveying or qualitative work with them.
“Just so you know, the rheumatologist was me,” he replied.
“I’m very picky about telemedicine,” he continued. “I don’t like it, I prefer, as most of us do, to have the patient there. But having the provider there, doing the exam, and you guiding them — I can ask, ‘Did you check their joints? Did you check their strength?’ — makes a huge difference and makes me feel comfortable with the sessions.”
Dr. Rivadeneira added that if a particular case was too complex or too vague to adequately assess via telehealth, he would arrange to see the patient in person.
The project was supported by the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Rivadeneira and Dr. Cappelli reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Even in large urban areas there aren’t enough rheumatologists to go around, and as a 2015 American College of Rheumatology workforce study projected, the number of rheumatology providers is expected to drop by 25% by the year 2030, while the demand for patient care in rheumatology is expected to increase by more than 100%.
The shortage of rheumatology care is even more acute in rural areas, but as a pilot project supported by the Arthritis Foundation shows, linking rheumatologists to health centers in remote and underserved locations via telehealth can help community providers improve care for patients with rheumatic diseases.
The novel collaborative model was described by Alfredo Rivadeneira, MD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
“We found that this pilot, a unique partnership in North Carolina, improves access to rheumatology care to a rural population with high satisfaction scores. It underlines the importance of seeking collaboration with community providers when implementing these programs. It also allows timely specialty care and alleviates the barriers relating to transportation, insurance coverage, and telecommunication challenges,” he said at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.
Too Many Patients, Too Few Rheumatologists
Access to health is challenging for people from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic backgrounds, especially in states such as North Carolina, where 40% of the population lives in rural counties, which have higher age-adjusted mortality than more densely populated areas of the state, Dr. Rivadeneira said.
In addition, 42% of the North Carolina residents seen at the state’s 42 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) don’t have health insurance, which is higher than the average of 23% uninsured seen at FQHCs in other states.
There are currently approximately 250 rheumatology providers in North Carolina, the majority of whom work in the states’ three academic medical centers. Currently, North Carolina has an estimated population of 10 million people, which is projected to increase to 11.7 million by 2030. And by 2030, 20% of North Carolinians will be aged ≥ 65 years, Dr. Rivadeneira said, highlighting the need for expanded rheumatology care.
Although telehealth services could be an option for expanding services to underserved communities, only 14 of the 42 FQHCs in the state use telehealth and only on a limited basis because it is not sufficiently reimbursed.
Rivadeneira pointed to a 2022 study that showed how patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients in North Carolina were less likely to use online patient portals if they lived in rural areas; came from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds; were older, men, had lower economic status (Medicaid enrollment or uninsured); or spoke a language other than English as their primary tongue.
Pilot Project
To help smooth out some of the above-mentioned disparities, Dr. Rivadeneira and colleagues, in collaboration with the Arthritis Foundation, started a pilot project in 2022 designed to enhance access to rheumatology specialty care for rural residents through a shared telehealth model between the UNC rheumatology clinic and two separate Piedmont Health Services clinics in rural areas.
The project includes tailored educational sessions designed to empower Piedmont Health Services providers for evaluating and managing patients with rheumatic diseases.
Patients with prior diagnoses of rheumatologic diseases who were lost to rheumatology specialty care follow-up and those with new rheumatic symptoms who had transportation and/or financial barriers to receiving specialty care are triaged to the shared telemedicine visits.
Providers conduct monthly clinic sessions via shared visits between the on-site Piedmont Health Services provider and patients, with off-site UNC rheumatology fellows and attending physicians connected virtually.
The educational component of the project includes monthly didactic sessions offered to all Piedmont Health Services providers across 12 locations.
The topics that were chosen cover the most common rheumatologic conditions seen by community providers, including evaluating pain from a rheumatology perspective; using antinuclear antibodies and other serologies; evaluating and managing rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, gout, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and osteoarthritis; and methotrexate management and complications.
“One of the aspects of this pilot that I want to emphasize is the importance of having the generalists with the patient, relaying the objective data, especially the physical exam, and that’s one of the great features of this model. It also provides a stable platform for telehealth to the individual patients, as many of these patients don’t have access to health technology,” Dr. Rivadeneira said.
Thumbs Up
Both patients and general practitioners in the Piedmont Health system expressed high degrees of satisfaction with the shared telehealth program. Patients especially liked the time they saved not having to travel to see a specialist, and a large majority agreed that the visits were “as good as” in-person visits, felt that their concerns were addressed appropriately during the virtual visit, expressed overall satisfaction, and said they would like to continue virtual visits.
Physicians expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the rheumatology didactic sessions and said that the sessions enhanced their knowledge of evaluating and managing or co-managing rheumatologic diseases, as well as helping them to feel comfortable about applying this knowledge to patient care.
Dr. Rivadeneira noted that the pilot study was limited by low levels of Piedmont Health Services physician participation (two out of 45 total participated in shared visits), and only three or four providers typically took part in each didactic session.
How to Improve?
In a follow-up study, the investigators asked Piedmont Health Services providers about barriers to rheumatology care, the most common and challenging diseases they encountered, how to improve the didactic components, and their perspectives on the pilot and how it may have affected referral patterns to rheumatology care.
The providers identified the cost of diagnostic evaluations and medications, transportation, long wait times, and language as the main barriers to patient access of rheumatology care.
“Additionally, over a third of them encountered patients on a weekly basis that were overdue for a visit with a rheumatologist,” Dr. Rivadeneira said.
“Direct participation in the physical exam by the primary care provider enhances greatly, in my opinion, these telehealth visits. Focused didactic sessions, electronic handouts and/or quick access guides could empower more rural community providers to manage rheumatic diseases,” he concluded.
In the Q&A following the presentation, Laura Cappelli, MD, MHS, MS, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, asked Dr. Rivadeneira how rheumatologists involved felt about the program and whether his team did any surveying or qualitative work with them.
“Just so you know, the rheumatologist was me,” he replied.
“I’m very picky about telemedicine,” he continued. “I don’t like it, I prefer, as most of us do, to have the patient there. But having the provider there, doing the exam, and you guiding them — I can ask, ‘Did you check their joints? Did you check their strength?’ — makes a huge difference and makes me feel comfortable with the sessions.”
Dr. Rivadeneira added that if a particular case was too complex or too vague to adequately assess via telehealth, he would arrange to see the patient in person.
The project was supported by the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Rivadeneira and Dr. Cappelli reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Even in large urban areas there aren’t enough rheumatologists to go around, and as a 2015 American College of Rheumatology workforce study projected, the number of rheumatology providers is expected to drop by 25% by the year 2030, while the demand for patient care in rheumatology is expected to increase by more than 100%.
The shortage of rheumatology care is even more acute in rural areas, but as a pilot project supported by the Arthritis Foundation shows, linking rheumatologists to health centers in remote and underserved locations via telehealth can help community providers improve care for patients with rheumatic diseases.
The novel collaborative model was described by Alfredo Rivadeneira, MD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
“We found that this pilot, a unique partnership in North Carolina, improves access to rheumatology care to a rural population with high satisfaction scores. It underlines the importance of seeking collaboration with community providers when implementing these programs. It also allows timely specialty care and alleviates the barriers relating to transportation, insurance coverage, and telecommunication challenges,” he said at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.
Too Many Patients, Too Few Rheumatologists
Access to health is challenging for people from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic backgrounds, especially in states such as North Carolina, where 40% of the population lives in rural counties, which have higher age-adjusted mortality than more densely populated areas of the state, Dr. Rivadeneira said.
In addition, 42% of the North Carolina residents seen at the state’s 42 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) don’t have health insurance, which is higher than the average of 23% uninsured seen at FQHCs in other states.
There are currently approximately 250 rheumatology providers in North Carolina, the majority of whom work in the states’ three academic medical centers. Currently, North Carolina has an estimated population of 10 million people, which is projected to increase to 11.7 million by 2030. And by 2030, 20% of North Carolinians will be aged ≥ 65 years, Dr. Rivadeneira said, highlighting the need for expanded rheumatology care.
Although telehealth services could be an option for expanding services to underserved communities, only 14 of the 42 FQHCs in the state use telehealth and only on a limited basis because it is not sufficiently reimbursed.
Rivadeneira pointed to a 2022 study that showed how patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients in North Carolina were less likely to use online patient portals if they lived in rural areas; came from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds; were older, men, had lower economic status (Medicaid enrollment or uninsured); or spoke a language other than English as their primary tongue.
Pilot Project
To help smooth out some of the above-mentioned disparities, Dr. Rivadeneira and colleagues, in collaboration with the Arthritis Foundation, started a pilot project in 2022 designed to enhance access to rheumatology specialty care for rural residents through a shared telehealth model between the UNC rheumatology clinic and two separate Piedmont Health Services clinics in rural areas.
The project includes tailored educational sessions designed to empower Piedmont Health Services providers for evaluating and managing patients with rheumatic diseases.
Patients with prior diagnoses of rheumatologic diseases who were lost to rheumatology specialty care follow-up and those with new rheumatic symptoms who had transportation and/or financial barriers to receiving specialty care are triaged to the shared telemedicine visits.
Providers conduct monthly clinic sessions via shared visits between the on-site Piedmont Health Services provider and patients, with off-site UNC rheumatology fellows and attending physicians connected virtually.
The educational component of the project includes monthly didactic sessions offered to all Piedmont Health Services providers across 12 locations.
The topics that were chosen cover the most common rheumatologic conditions seen by community providers, including evaluating pain from a rheumatology perspective; using antinuclear antibodies and other serologies; evaluating and managing rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, gout, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and osteoarthritis; and methotrexate management and complications.
“One of the aspects of this pilot that I want to emphasize is the importance of having the generalists with the patient, relaying the objective data, especially the physical exam, and that’s one of the great features of this model. It also provides a stable platform for telehealth to the individual patients, as many of these patients don’t have access to health technology,” Dr. Rivadeneira said.
Thumbs Up
Both patients and general practitioners in the Piedmont Health system expressed high degrees of satisfaction with the shared telehealth program. Patients especially liked the time they saved not having to travel to see a specialist, and a large majority agreed that the visits were “as good as” in-person visits, felt that their concerns were addressed appropriately during the virtual visit, expressed overall satisfaction, and said they would like to continue virtual visits.
Physicians expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the rheumatology didactic sessions and said that the sessions enhanced their knowledge of evaluating and managing or co-managing rheumatologic diseases, as well as helping them to feel comfortable about applying this knowledge to patient care.
Dr. Rivadeneira noted that the pilot study was limited by low levels of Piedmont Health Services physician participation (two out of 45 total participated in shared visits), and only three or four providers typically took part in each didactic session.
How to Improve?
In a follow-up study, the investigators asked Piedmont Health Services providers about barriers to rheumatology care, the most common and challenging diseases they encountered, how to improve the didactic components, and their perspectives on the pilot and how it may have affected referral patterns to rheumatology care.
The providers identified the cost of diagnostic evaluations and medications, transportation, long wait times, and language as the main barriers to patient access of rheumatology care.
“Additionally, over a third of them encountered patients on a weekly basis that were overdue for a visit with a rheumatologist,” Dr. Rivadeneira said.
“Direct participation in the physical exam by the primary care provider enhances greatly, in my opinion, these telehealth visits. Focused didactic sessions, electronic handouts and/or quick access guides could empower more rural community providers to manage rheumatic diseases,” he concluded.
In the Q&A following the presentation, Laura Cappelli, MD, MHS, MS, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, asked Dr. Rivadeneira how rheumatologists involved felt about the program and whether his team did any surveying or qualitative work with them.
“Just so you know, the rheumatologist was me,” he replied.
“I’m very picky about telemedicine,” he continued. “I don’t like it, I prefer, as most of us do, to have the patient there. But having the provider there, doing the exam, and you guiding them — I can ask, ‘Did you check their joints? Did you check their strength?’ — makes a huge difference and makes me feel comfortable with the sessions.”
Dr. Rivadeneira added that if a particular case was too complex or too vague to adequately assess via telehealth, he would arrange to see the patient in person.
The project was supported by the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Rivadeneira and Dr. Cappelli reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM RA SUMMIT 2024
Vaccine ‘Will Not Curb’ Dengue Epidemic, Says PAHO
The current tetravalent dengue vaccine TAK-003, from the Japanese laboratory Takeda, is not likely to control the ongoing epidemic, according to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The organization emphasized the need to better understand the vaccine’s effectiveness against different serotypes and its safety under real-world clinical conditions.
The Americas are experiencing a record increase in dengue cases. Three times as many cases have been identified during 2024 (3.5 million) than were reported for the same period in 2023.
“The vaccine we have available will not curb the dengue epidemic; it should be used complementarily with other actions. The most important actions are field operations, vector control, prevention, and education,” said Daniel Salas, MD, executive manager of the PAHO Comprehensive Immunization Program, during a press conference on March 28.
“The vaccines we currently have are not the best response to reduce transmission and prevent deaths,” added Jarbas Barbosa, MD, PhD, PAHO’s director. The fatality rate remains below 0.05%, but this figure could be hard to maintain if the situation becomes more uncontrolled.
The TAK-003 regimen consists of two doses with a 3-month interval between applications, so “it is not a tool to control transmission at this moment. Studies have shown that only 8 years of [population-level] vaccination would have a significant impact on dengue transmission,” said Dr. Barbosa.
A new vaccine developed in Brazil in partnership with the company MSD, Butantan-DV, is in phase 3 trials and has the advantage of being a single-dose application, which could facilitate its use in situations with accelerated transmission. “But this vaccine will likely only be available in 2025,” said Dr. Barbosa.
PAHO officials also highlighted the need to better characterize the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety in the real world. They observed, for example, that when TAK-003 was investigated, the circulation of dengue serotype 3 was almost nonexistent, so the efficacy data against that serotype “are very limited.”
“The producer, Takeda, has very limited production capacity. Brazil is the country that uses this vaccine the most, followed by Argentina. Given that these countries have a good epidemiological surveillance system and adverse effect registration, they can conduct studies on how the vaccine performs in real life, which will greatly increase our knowledge about it. For example, we will see its effectiveness against serotype 3,” said Dr. Barbosa.
The PAHO Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on vaccine-preventable diseases recommended that any country using these vaccines have surveillance systems in place because it is important to promptly report and investigate any adverse events, said Dr. Salas. The organization also suggested that vaccination should ideally be administered in a “more controlled environment,” a phase 4 study, “to complete the safety and efficacy profile, especially in those who have not had dengue before and for dengue 3 and 4,” said Dr. Salas in response to a question from this news organization.
“People cannot expect that just because they were vaccinated, they will not get dengue. The vaccine has limited reach,” he emphasized.
Other research strategies for vector control, such as the use of the Wolbachia bacteria and mosquito sterilization, are future strategies and “not tools to control this outbreak,” noted Sylvain Aldighieri, MD, director of the Department of Prevention, Control, and Elimination of Transmissible Diseases at PAHO.
In his opening remarks, Dr. Barbosa urged the intensification of efforts with tools that are already available. These approaches include eliminating mosquito breeding sites (“80% are in or near homes”) and protecting against mosquito bites, preparing health services for early diagnosis and timely clinical management, and educating the population about dengue symptoms so they seek medical attention immediately.
Although dengue is increasing throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, the most affected countries are Brazil (83%), Paraguay (5.3%), and Argentina (3.7%), which account for 92% of the cases and 87% of the deaths, PAHO reported.
This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The current tetravalent dengue vaccine TAK-003, from the Japanese laboratory Takeda, is not likely to control the ongoing epidemic, according to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The organization emphasized the need to better understand the vaccine’s effectiveness against different serotypes and its safety under real-world clinical conditions.
The Americas are experiencing a record increase in dengue cases. Three times as many cases have been identified during 2024 (3.5 million) than were reported for the same period in 2023.
“The vaccine we have available will not curb the dengue epidemic; it should be used complementarily with other actions. The most important actions are field operations, vector control, prevention, and education,” said Daniel Salas, MD, executive manager of the PAHO Comprehensive Immunization Program, during a press conference on March 28.
“The vaccines we currently have are not the best response to reduce transmission and prevent deaths,” added Jarbas Barbosa, MD, PhD, PAHO’s director. The fatality rate remains below 0.05%, but this figure could be hard to maintain if the situation becomes more uncontrolled.
The TAK-003 regimen consists of two doses with a 3-month interval between applications, so “it is not a tool to control transmission at this moment. Studies have shown that only 8 years of [population-level] vaccination would have a significant impact on dengue transmission,” said Dr. Barbosa.
A new vaccine developed in Brazil in partnership with the company MSD, Butantan-DV, is in phase 3 trials and has the advantage of being a single-dose application, which could facilitate its use in situations with accelerated transmission. “But this vaccine will likely only be available in 2025,” said Dr. Barbosa.
PAHO officials also highlighted the need to better characterize the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety in the real world. They observed, for example, that when TAK-003 was investigated, the circulation of dengue serotype 3 was almost nonexistent, so the efficacy data against that serotype “are very limited.”
“The producer, Takeda, has very limited production capacity. Brazil is the country that uses this vaccine the most, followed by Argentina. Given that these countries have a good epidemiological surveillance system and adverse effect registration, they can conduct studies on how the vaccine performs in real life, which will greatly increase our knowledge about it. For example, we will see its effectiveness against serotype 3,” said Dr. Barbosa.
The PAHO Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on vaccine-preventable diseases recommended that any country using these vaccines have surveillance systems in place because it is important to promptly report and investigate any adverse events, said Dr. Salas. The organization also suggested that vaccination should ideally be administered in a “more controlled environment,” a phase 4 study, “to complete the safety and efficacy profile, especially in those who have not had dengue before and for dengue 3 and 4,” said Dr. Salas in response to a question from this news organization.
“People cannot expect that just because they were vaccinated, they will not get dengue. The vaccine has limited reach,” he emphasized.
Other research strategies for vector control, such as the use of the Wolbachia bacteria and mosquito sterilization, are future strategies and “not tools to control this outbreak,” noted Sylvain Aldighieri, MD, director of the Department of Prevention, Control, and Elimination of Transmissible Diseases at PAHO.
In his opening remarks, Dr. Barbosa urged the intensification of efforts with tools that are already available. These approaches include eliminating mosquito breeding sites (“80% are in or near homes”) and protecting against mosquito bites, preparing health services for early diagnosis and timely clinical management, and educating the population about dengue symptoms so they seek medical attention immediately.
Although dengue is increasing throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, the most affected countries are Brazil (83%), Paraguay (5.3%), and Argentina (3.7%), which account for 92% of the cases and 87% of the deaths, PAHO reported.
This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The current tetravalent dengue vaccine TAK-003, from the Japanese laboratory Takeda, is not likely to control the ongoing epidemic, according to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The organization emphasized the need to better understand the vaccine’s effectiveness against different serotypes and its safety under real-world clinical conditions.
The Americas are experiencing a record increase in dengue cases. Three times as many cases have been identified during 2024 (3.5 million) than were reported for the same period in 2023.
“The vaccine we have available will not curb the dengue epidemic; it should be used complementarily with other actions. The most important actions are field operations, vector control, prevention, and education,” said Daniel Salas, MD, executive manager of the PAHO Comprehensive Immunization Program, during a press conference on March 28.
“The vaccines we currently have are not the best response to reduce transmission and prevent deaths,” added Jarbas Barbosa, MD, PhD, PAHO’s director. The fatality rate remains below 0.05%, but this figure could be hard to maintain if the situation becomes more uncontrolled.
The TAK-003 regimen consists of two doses with a 3-month interval between applications, so “it is not a tool to control transmission at this moment. Studies have shown that only 8 years of [population-level] vaccination would have a significant impact on dengue transmission,” said Dr. Barbosa.
A new vaccine developed in Brazil in partnership with the company MSD, Butantan-DV, is in phase 3 trials and has the advantage of being a single-dose application, which could facilitate its use in situations with accelerated transmission. “But this vaccine will likely only be available in 2025,” said Dr. Barbosa.
PAHO officials also highlighted the need to better characterize the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety in the real world. They observed, for example, that when TAK-003 was investigated, the circulation of dengue serotype 3 was almost nonexistent, so the efficacy data against that serotype “are very limited.”
“The producer, Takeda, has very limited production capacity. Brazil is the country that uses this vaccine the most, followed by Argentina. Given that these countries have a good epidemiological surveillance system and adverse effect registration, they can conduct studies on how the vaccine performs in real life, which will greatly increase our knowledge about it. For example, we will see its effectiveness against serotype 3,” said Dr. Barbosa.
The PAHO Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on vaccine-preventable diseases recommended that any country using these vaccines have surveillance systems in place because it is important to promptly report and investigate any adverse events, said Dr. Salas. The organization also suggested that vaccination should ideally be administered in a “more controlled environment,” a phase 4 study, “to complete the safety and efficacy profile, especially in those who have not had dengue before and for dengue 3 and 4,” said Dr. Salas in response to a question from this news organization.
“People cannot expect that just because they were vaccinated, they will not get dengue. The vaccine has limited reach,” he emphasized.
Other research strategies for vector control, such as the use of the Wolbachia bacteria and mosquito sterilization, are future strategies and “not tools to control this outbreak,” noted Sylvain Aldighieri, MD, director of the Department of Prevention, Control, and Elimination of Transmissible Diseases at PAHO.
In his opening remarks, Dr. Barbosa urged the intensification of efforts with tools that are already available. These approaches include eliminating mosquito breeding sites (“80% are in or near homes”) and protecting against mosquito bites, preparing health services for early diagnosis and timely clinical management, and educating the population about dengue symptoms so they seek medical attention immediately.
Although dengue is increasing throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, the most affected countries are Brazil (83%), Paraguay (5.3%), and Argentina (3.7%), which account for 92% of the cases and 87% of the deaths, PAHO reported.
This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Second Ustekinumab Biosimilar Gets FDA Approval
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.
This is the second ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and is the second biosimilar approval in the United States for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals.
Ustekinumab (Stelara) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)–12 and IL-23. The drug, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, totaled nearly $7 billion in sales in 2023 alone, according a press release.
“Bringing Selarsdi to market in the US early next year presents a significant opportunity to improve patient access to a vital biologic in inflammatory disease and contribute to the reduction of inflationary pressure in healthcare costs,” the chairman and CEO of Alvotech said in the release.
The first ustekinumab biosimilar, ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana), was approved by the FDA in on October 31, 2023 and is interchangeable with the reference product. This allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Besides psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, ustekinumab-auub was also approved for treating moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Ustekinumab-aekn does not have an interchangeability designation and was not approved for Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.
The approval of ustekinumab-aekn was based on two clinical studies. A randomized, double blind, multicenter, 52-week study of 581 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that the biosimilar was as effective as the reference product, with equivalent safety and immunogenicity profiles. A phase 1, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group, three-arm study also compared the pharmacokinetic profile of the biosimilar to ustekinumab in 294 healthy adults.
Ustekinumab-aekn is expected to be marketed in the United States on or after February 21, 2025 per a settlement and license agreement with Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.
This is the second ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and is the second biosimilar approval in the United States for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals.
Ustekinumab (Stelara) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)–12 and IL-23. The drug, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, totaled nearly $7 billion in sales in 2023 alone, according a press release.
“Bringing Selarsdi to market in the US early next year presents a significant opportunity to improve patient access to a vital biologic in inflammatory disease and contribute to the reduction of inflationary pressure in healthcare costs,” the chairman and CEO of Alvotech said in the release.
The first ustekinumab biosimilar, ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana), was approved by the FDA in on October 31, 2023 and is interchangeable with the reference product. This allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Besides psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, ustekinumab-auub was also approved for treating moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Ustekinumab-aekn does not have an interchangeability designation and was not approved for Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.
The approval of ustekinumab-aekn was based on two clinical studies. A randomized, double blind, multicenter, 52-week study of 581 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that the biosimilar was as effective as the reference product, with equivalent safety and immunogenicity profiles. A phase 1, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group, three-arm study also compared the pharmacokinetic profile of the biosimilar to ustekinumab in 294 healthy adults.
Ustekinumab-aekn is expected to be marketed in the United States on or after February 21, 2025 per a settlement and license agreement with Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.
This is the second ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and is the second biosimilar approval in the United States for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals.
Ustekinumab (Stelara) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)–12 and IL-23. The drug, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, totaled nearly $7 billion in sales in 2023 alone, according a press release.
“Bringing Selarsdi to market in the US early next year presents a significant opportunity to improve patient access to a vital biologic in inflammatory disease and contribute to the reduction of inflationary pressure in healthcare costs,” the chairman and CEO of Alvotech said in the release.
The first ustekinumab biosimilar, ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana), was approved by the FDA in on October 31, 2023 and is interchangeable with the reference product. This allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Besides psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, ustekinumab-auub was also approved for treating moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Ustekinumab-aekn does not have an interchangeability designation and was not approved for Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.
The approval of ustekinumab-aekn was based on two clinical studies. A randomized, double blind, multicenter, 52-week study of 581 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that the biosimilar was as effective as the reference product, with equivalent safety and immunogenicity profiles. A phase 1, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group, three-arm study also compared the pharmacokinetic profile of the biosimilar to ustekinumab in 294 healthy adults.
Ustekinumab-aekn is expected to be marketed in the United States on or after February 21, 2025 per a settlement and license agreement with Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
What’s Driving the Higher Breast Cancer Death Rate in Black Women?
More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.
However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.
Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.
In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.
“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.
The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.
Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race
A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.
Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.
Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.
Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.
“You’ve got people who are working a job or three jobs, just to make ends meet for their family and can’t necessarily take time off to get that done,” she said. “Nor is it prioritized in their head because they’ve got to put a meal on the table.”
But the racial disparities between Black and White women, at least, are not clearly explained by differences between the screening rates..
Of patients who received mammograms 76% were White and 79% were Black, according to another recent study coauthored by Dr. Islami. While Black women appear to have the highest breast cancer screening rates, some data suggest such rates are being overreported.
Lower screening rates were seen in American Indian/Alaska Native (59%), Asian (67%), and Hispanic women (74%).
Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes
Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.
Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.
Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.
DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.
“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”
The study found that many of the proteins associated with endocrine resistance and poor outcomes in breast cancer patients are differently regulated in Black women compared with White woman. These differences contribute to resistance to standard endocrine therapy, Dr. Haricharan said.
“Because we never studied the biology in Black woman, it was just assumed that across all demographics, it must be the same,” she said. “We are not even accounting for the possibility there are likely intrinsic differences for how you will respond to an endocrine treatment.”
Testing and treatment may also be playing a role in worse breast cancer outcomes for Black women.
In an analysis of 73,363 women with early-stage, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, investigators found that a common test used to decide the treatment course for patients may be leading to bad recommendations for Black women.
The test, known as the 21-gene breast recurrence score, is the most commonly ordered biomarker test used to guide doctor’s recommendations for patients with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, the most common form of cancer in Black women, representing about 70%-80% of cases.
The test helps physicians identify which patients are good candidates for chemo, but the test may underestimate the benefit of chemo for Black women. It ranks some Black women as unlikely to benefit from chemo, when they actually would have benefited, according to the January 2024 study, published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
The test gives a score of zero to 100, explains Kent Hoskins, MD, oncology service line medical director at the University of Illinois (UI) Health and director of the Familial Breast Cancer Clinic at UI Health, both in Chicago. The higher the score, the higher the risk and the greater the benefit of chemotherapy. A patient is either above the cut-off score and receives chemo, or is below the cut-off score and does not. In the analysis, investigators found that Black women start improving with chemo at a lower score than White women do.
Dr. Hoskins said the results raise questions about whether the biomarker test should be modified to be more applicable to Black women, whether other tests should be used, or if physicians should judge cut-off scores differently, depending on race.
How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates
Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)
Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).
Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.
Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).
Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.
“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.
Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.
Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.
Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz and her colleagues analyzed a cohort of 1764 women diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2010 and December 2017, who were followed up through December 2019. Investigators accessed the cohort based on three exposures: historic redlining (HRL), contemporary mortgage discrimination (CMD), and persistent mortgage discrimination (PMD). Contemporary mortgage discrimination refers to current-day discriminatory mortgage practices and persistent mortgage discrimination refers to neighborhoods that have experienced both HRL and CMD.
Findings showed that Black women living in historical redlined areas had increased odds of being diagnosed with aggressive forms of breast cancer, while White women in redlined areas had increased odds of late-stage diagnosis.
White women exposed to persistent mortgage discrimination were twice as likely to die of breast cancer, compared with their White counterparts living in areas without historical redlining or contemporary mortgage discrimination, the study found.
That is not to say that Black women did not have an increased risk of breast cancer mortality, Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz explained. Black women had a more than threefold elevated risk of breast cancer mortality compared with White women no matter where they lived, according to the findings.
“These results were surprising because it is showing that while neighborhood conditions might be a major driver of breast cancer mortality in White women, there are factors beyond the neighborhood that are additional drivers that are contributing to poor outcomes in Black women,” she said.
Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates
Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.
Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.
There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.
“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.
The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.
Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”
More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.
However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.
Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.
In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.
“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.
The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.
Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race
A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.
Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.
Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.
Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.
“You’ve got people who are working a job or three jobs, just to make ends meet for their family and can’t necessarily take time off to get that done,” she said. “Nor is it prioritized in their head because they’ve got to put a meal on the table.”
But the racial disparities between Black and White women, at least, are not clearly explained by differences between the screening rates..
Of patients who received mammograms 76% were White and 79% were Black, according to another recent study coauthored by Dr. Islami. While Black women appear to have the highest breast cancer screening rates, some data suggest such rates are being overreported.
Lower screening rates were seen in American Indian/Alaska Native (59%), Asian (67%), and Hispanic women (74%).
Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes
Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.
Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.
Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.
DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.
“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”
The study found that many of the proteins associated with endocrine resistance and poor outcomes in breast cancer patients are differently regulated in Black women compared with White woman. These differences contribute to resistance to standard endocrine therapy, Dr. Haricharan said.
“Because we never studied the biology in Black woman, it was just assumed that across all demographics, it must be the same,” she said. “We are not even accounting for the possibility there are likely intrinsic differences for how you will respond to an endocrine treatment.”
Testing and treatment may also be playing a role in worse breast cancer outcomes for Black women.
In an analysis of 73,363 women with early-stage, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, investigators found that a common test used to decide the treatment course for patients may be leading to bad recommendations for Black women.
The test, known as the 21-gene breast recurrence score, is the most commonly ordered biomarker test used to guide doctor’s recommendations for patients with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, the most common form of cancer in Black women, representing about 70%-80% of cases.
The test helps physicians identify which patients are good candidates for chemo, but the test may underestimate the benefit of chemo for Black women. It ranks some Black women as unlikely to benefit from chemo, when they actually would have benefited, according to the January 2024 study, published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
The test gives a score of zero to 100, explains Kent Hoskins, MD, oncology service line medical director at the University of Illinois (UI) Health and director of the Familial Breast Cancer Clinic at UI Health, both in Chicago. The higher the score, the higher the risk and the greater the benefit of chemotherapy. A patient is either above the cut-off score and receives chemo, or is below the cut-off score and does not. In the analysis, investigators found that Black women start improving with chemo at a lower score than White women do.
Dr. Hoskins said the results raise questions about whether the biomarker test should be modified to be more applicable to Black women, whether other tests should be used, or if physicians should judge cut-off scores differently, depending on race.
How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates
Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)
Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).
Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.
Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).
Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.
“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.
Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.
Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.
Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz and her colleagues analyzed a cohort of 1764 women diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2010 and December 2017, who were followed up through December 2019. Investigators accessed the cohort based on three exposures: historic redlining (HRL), contemporary mortgage discrimination (CMD), and persistent mortgage discrimination (PMD). Contemporary mortgage discrimination refers to current-day discriminatory mortgage practices and persistent mortgage discrimination refers to neighborhoods that have experienced both HRL and CMD.
Findings showed that Black women living in historical redlined areas had increased odds of being diagnosed with aggressive forms of breast cancer, while White women in redlined areas had increased odds of late-stage diagnosis.
White women exposed to persistent mortgage discrimination were twice as likely to die of breast cancer, compared with their White counterparts living in areas without historical redlining or contemporary mortgage discrimination, the study found.
That is not to say that Black women did not have an increased risk of breast cancer mortality, Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz explained. Black women had a more than threefold elevated risk of breast cancer mortality compared with White women no matter where they lived, according to the findings.
“These results were surprising because it is showing that while neighborhood conditions might be a major driver of breast cancer mortality in White women, there are factors beyond the neighborhood that are additional drivers that are contributing to poor outcomes in Black women,” she said.
Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates
Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.
Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.
There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.
“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.
The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.
Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”
More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.
However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.
Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.
In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.
“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.
The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.
Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race
A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.
Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.
Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.
Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.
“You’ve got people who are working a job or three jobs, just to make ends meet for their family and can’t necessarily take time off to get that done,” she said. “Nor is it prioritized in their head because they’ve got to put a meal on the table.”
But the racial disparities between Black and White women, at least, are not clearly explained by differences between the screening rates..
Of patients who received mammograms 76% were White and 79% were Black, according to another recent study coauthored by Dr. Islami. While Black women appear to have the highest breast cancer screening rates, some data suggest such rates are being overreported.
Lower screening rates were seen in American Indian/Alaska Native (59%), Asian (67%), and Hispanic women (74%).
Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes
Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.
Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.
Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.
DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.
“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”
The study found that many of the proteins associated with endocrine resistance and poor outcomes in breast cancer patients are differently regulated in Black women compared with White woman. These differences contribute to resistance to standard endocrine therapy, Dr. Haricharan said.
“Because we never studied the biology in Black woman, it was just assumed that across all demographics, it must be the same,” she said. “We are not even accounting for the possibility there are likely intrinsic differences for how you will respond to an endocrine treatment.”
Testing and treatment may also be playing a role in worse breast cancer outcomes for Black women.
In an analysis of 73,363 women with early-stage, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, investigators found that a common test used to decide the treatment course for patients may be leading to bad recommendations for Black women.
The test, known as the 21-gene breast recurrence score, is the most commonly ordered biomarker test used to guide doctor’s recommendations for patients with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, the most common form of cancer in Black women, representing about 70%-80% of cases.
The test helps physicians identify which patients are good candidates for chemo, but the test may underestimate the benefit of chemo for Black women. It ranks some Black women as unlikely to benefit from chemo, when they actually would have benefited, according to the January 2024 study, published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
The test gives a score of zero to 100, explains Kent Hoskins, MD, oncology service line medical director at the University of Illinois (UI) Health and director of the Familial Breast Cancer Clinic at UI Health, both in Chicago. The higher the score, the higher the risk and the greater the benefit of chemotherapy. A patient is either above the cut-off score and receives chemo, or is below the cut-off score and does not. In the analysis, investigators found that Black women start improving with chemo at a lower score than White women do.
Dr. Hoskins said the results raise questions about whether the biomarker test should be modified to be more applicable to Black women, whether other tests should be used, or if physicians should judge cut-off scores differently, depending on race.
How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates
Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)
Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).
Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.
Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).
Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.
“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.
Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.
Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.
Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz and her colleagues analyzed a cohort of 1764 women diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2010 and December 2017, who were followed up through December 2019. Investigators accessed the cohort based on three exposures: historic redlining (HRL), contemporary mortgage discrimination (CMD), and persistent mortgage discrimination (PMD). Contemporary mortgage discrimination refers to current-day discriminatory mortgage practices and persistent mortgage discrimination refers to neighborhoods that have experienced both HRL and CMD.
Findings showed that Black women living in historical redlined areas had increased odds of being diagnosed with aggressive forms of breast cancer, while White women in redlined areas had increased odds of late-stage diagnosis.
White women exposed to persistent mortgage discrimination were twice as likely to die of breast cancer, compared with their White counterparts living in areas without historical redlining or contemporary mortgage discrimination, the study found.
That is not to say that Black women did not have an increased risk of breast cancer mortality, Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz explained. Black women had a more than threefold elevated risk of breast cancer mortality compared with White women no matter where they lived, according to the findings.
“These results were surprising because it is showing that while neighborhood conditions might be a major driver of breast cancer mortality in White women, there are factors beyond the neighborhood that are additional drivers that are contributing to poor outcomes in Black women,” she said.
Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates
Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.
Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.
There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.
“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.
The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.
Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”
FDA Approves AI Diagnostic Tool for Early Sepsis Detection
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a medical device named the Sepsis ImmunoScore, which is an artificial intelligence/machine learning software, to guide rapid diagnosis and prediction of sepsis. The authorization was granted through the FDA’s De Novo pathway.
Sepsis is a complex condition, so diagnosing it early is difficult and has been a decades-long challenge for the US healthcare system.
Using both biomarkers and clinical data with the assistance of AI, the Sepsis ImmunoScore helps assess the risk for the presence of or progression to sepsis within 24 hours of patient evaluation in the emergency department or hospital. By considering 22 diverse parameters, the AI-powered tool provides a comprehensive evaluation of the patient’s biological condition, resulting in a risk score and categorization into four distinct risk levels.
It’s important to note that this system is not an alert mechanism. These risk categories are correlated with the risk for patient deterioration, including length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and the need for escalated care within 24 hours (such as intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or vasopressor use). The diagnostic software is integrated directly into hospital electronic medical records.
This is the first AI diagnostic tool for sepsis to receive marketing authorization from the FDA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a medical device named the Sepsis ImmunoScore, which is an artificial intelligence/machine learning software, to guide rapid diagnosis and prediction of sepsis. The authorization was granted through the FDA’s De Novo pathway.
Sepsis is a complex condition, so diagnosing it early is difficult and has been a decades-long challenge for the US healthcare system.
Using both biomarkers and clinical data with the assistance of AI, the Sepsis ImmunoScore helps assess the risk for the presence of or progression to sepsis within 24 hours of patient evaluation in the emergency department or hospital. By considering 22 diverse parameters, the AI-powered tool provides a comprehensive evaluation of the patient’s biological condition, resulting in a risk score and categorization into four distinct risk levels.
It’s important to note that this system is not an alert mechanism. These risk categories are correlated with the risk for patient deterioration, including length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and the need for escalated care within 24 hours (such as intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or vasopressor use). The diagnostic software is integrated directly into hospital electronic medical records.
This is the first AI diagnostic tool for sepsis to receive marketing authorization from the FDA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a medical device named the Sepsis ImmunoScore, which is an artificial intelligence/machine learning software, to guide rapid diagnosis and prediction of sepsis. The authorization was granted through the FDA’s De Novo pathway.
Sepsis is a complex condition, so diagnosing it early is difficult and has been a decades-long challenge for the US healthcare system.
Using both biomarkers and clinical data with the assistance of AI, the Sepsis ImmunoScore helps assess the risk for the presence of or progression to sepsis within 24 hours of patient evaluation in the emergency department or hospital. By considering 22 diverse parameters, the AI-powered tool provides a comprehensive evaluation of the patient’s biological condition, resulting in a risk score and categorization into four distinct risk levels.
It’s important to note that this system is not an alert mechanism. These risk categories are correlated with the risk for patient deterioration, including length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and the need for escalated care within 24 hours (such as intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or vasopressor use). The diagnostic software is integrated directly into hospital electronic medical records.
This is the first AI diagnostic tool for sepsis to receive marketing authorization from the FDA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Timing Is Everything: CAR T for Follicular Lymphoma
“CAR T-cells offer patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma the most durable responses and improved chance of survival beyond all other available therapies. This holds true for a broad range of high-risk disease features in patients with relapsed or refractory FL. Furthermore, it accomplishes this with a single infusion, and a discrete toxicity that is predictable, reversible and manageable,” said Caron Jacobson, MD, MMSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
Presenting at the Great Debates & Updates Hematologic Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City, Dr. Jacobson argued that more patients with R/R FL should be treated with CAR T.
She cited follow-up results from the ZUMA-5 study indicating that patients with R/R FL treated with the CAR T axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA; Kite Pharma) have a median progression free survival (PFS) of 57.3 months and a complete response rate (CR) of 80%. Furthermore, the lymphoma-specific four-year PFS appears to be reaching a plateau, suggesting that some patients treated with the agent may be cured.
The most significant drawback of treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel is cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, which occurred at grade three and higher in 6% and 15%, of ZUMA-5 participants, respectively.
Two newer studies of anti-CD-19 CAR T-cell therapy in R/R FL, tisagenlecleucel in ELARA and lisocabtagene maraleucel in TRANSCEND FL, suggest that other CAR T-cell treatments can be as effective as axicabtagene ciloleucel, but with fewer side effects.
At a median follow up of 29 months, CR among patients in the ELARA study was 68.1%, and the overall response rate (ORR) was 86.2%. Fewer than half of patients had any CRS, and none had grade three or higher. Only 10% of patients had serious neurologic events, with only 1% of these events rated as grade three or higher.
At a median of 18.1 months, patients in the TRANSCEND FL study had a CR of 94% and an ORR of 97%. Over 58% of patients had CRS but it was grade three or higher only 1% of the time (one patient); 15% of patients had neurologic toxicity, but it was grade three or higher only 2% of the time (three patients).
Dr. Jacobson’s opponent in the debate, Peter Martin, MD, of NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, acknowledged the strong performance of CAR T in R/R FL patients but argued that they should be used only in a small subset of patients.
“About 20% of patients will experience an early recurrence or progression of diseases within 24 months (PoD-24) which is associated with worse outcomes. About half of those patients experienced transformation, so they have diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and they’re getting CAR T-cells. In the end, only 10% of patients with follicular lymphoma are relapsed or refractory and should consider getting Car T-cell therapy,” said Dr. Martin, who focused the rest of his presentation on the best options for treating patients with indolent R/R FL who did not have PoD-24.
He said these patients may be able to avoid the side effects of CAR T and perform well when treated with lenalidomide rituximab (R2) or bispecific antibodies. Data from the MAGNIFY trial of patients with R/R FL indicate that patients treated with R2 who did not experience relapse less than 24 months after starting treatment and were not heavily refractory to rituximab achieved a median PFS of over 4 years, with grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in 5% of patients or less.
Treatment with bispecific antibodies, although inferior in performance to CAR T-cell therapy, may offer durable responses in some R/R CL patients without the risk of side effects associated with CAR T.
Mosunetuzumab, a bispecific antibody that is currently approved for follicular lymphoma, is designed with step-up dosing to reduce cytokine release syndrome and “achieved a complete response rate of 60% and a median PFS that looks like it’s probably about two years,” said Dr. Martin, noting that some patients continue to do well after the 3-year mark and speculated that “there will be some really long-term responders.”
In addition to the possibly durable nature of bispecific antibodies, they induce cytokine release syndrome at a much lower rate than CAR T, and most side effects are manageable in an outpatient setting, “usually just with Tylenol occasionally with a dose of steroids,” said Dr. Martin.
He contrasted this response with CAR T-cell therapy, which requires referral and travel to a specialized center for at least 1 month around the time of therapy.
Despite the differences of opinion between the presenters about whether CAR T should be used more or less in R/R FL, essentially the two specialists were making recommendations for different patient groups.
Dr. Jacobson observed that “Dr. Martin is looking at the 80% of people who do really well with follicular lymphoma." Those are the people who don’t require a third line of therapy. They are the people who don’t have PoD-24. I’m looking at the 20% of people who either do require a third line of therapy or who do have PoD-24, and we’re not treating nearly enough of those patients with follicular lymphoma.
“We’re actually arguing about treatment strategies for different populations of patients. And I think ultimately, we agree more than we disagree in the end,” she concluded.
The notion that CAR T, chemotherapy, and bispecific antibodies all have a place in treating R/R FL patients is supported by Charalambos (Babis) Andreadis, MD, hematologist at the University of California San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Care Center. “If I had a patient with follicular who relapsed 24 months or later after primary therapy and had active disease that needed treatment, most providers would do a lenalidomide-based or chemo-based regimen. Down the line either bispecific or CAR T would be appropriate in third line,” said Dr. Andreadis.
However, he noted,“for someone who is an early progressor, I would similarly not be able to use either [chemotherapy or bispecific antibodies] in second line [therapy] but would definitely think that early CART would be a good option to consider given the longevity of the observed responses so far.”
Dr. Martin disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Daiichi Sankyo, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and PeproMene. Dr. Jacobson reported relationships with AbbVie, Abintus Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Appia Bio, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Caribou Bio, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmPACT Bio, Ipsen, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, MorphoSys, Novartis, Sana, Synthekine, Kite/Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Andreadis had no disclosures.
“CAR T-cells offer patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma the most durable responses and improved chance of survival beyond all other available therapies. This holds true for a broad range of high-risk disease features in patients with relapsed or refractory FL. Furthermore, it accomplishes this with a single infusion, and a discrete toxicity that is predictable, reversible and manageable,” said Caron Jacobson, MD, MMSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
Presenting at the Great Debates & Updates Hematologic Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City, Dr. Jacobson argued that more patients with R/R FL should be treated with CAR T.
She cited follow-up results from the ZUMA-5 study indicating that patients with R/R FL treated with the CAR T axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA; Kite Pharma) have a median progression free survival (PFS) of 57.3 months and a complete response rate (CR) of 80%. Furthermore, the lymphoma-specific four-year PFS appears to be reaching a plateau, suggesting that some patients treated with the agent may be cured.
The most significant drawback of treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel is cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, which occurred at grade three and higher in 6% and 15%, of ZUMA-5 participants, respectively.
Two newer studies of anti-CD-19 CAR T-cell therapy in R/R FL, tisagenlecleucel in ELARA and lisocabtagene maraleucel in TRANSCEND FL, suggest that other CAR T-cell treatments can be as effective as axicabtagene ciloleucel, but with fewer side effects.
At a median follow up of 29 months, CR among patients in the ELARA study was 68.1%, and the overall response rate (ORR) was 86.2%. Fewer than half of patients had any CRS, and none had grade three or higher. Only 10% of patients had serious neurologic events, with only 1% of these events rated as grade three or higher.
At a median of 18.1 months, patients in the TRANSCEND FL study had a CR of 94% and an ORR of 97%. Over 58% of patients had CRS but it was grade three or higher only 1% of the time (one patient); 15% of patients had neurologic toxicity, but it was grade three or higher only 2% of the time (three patients).
Dr. Jacobson’s opponent in the debate, Peter Martin, MD, of NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, acknowledged the strong performance of CAR T in R/R FL patients but argued that they should be used only in a small subset of patients.
“About 20% of patients will experience an early recurrence or progression of diseases within 24 months (PoD-24) which is associated with worse outcomes. About half of those patients experienced transformation, so they have diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and they’re getting CAR T-cells. In the end, only 10% of patients with follicular lymphoma are relapsed or refractory and should consider getting Car T-cell therapy,” said Dr. Martin, who focused the rest of his presentation on the best options for treating patients with indolent R/R FL who did not have PoD-24.
He said these patients may be able to avoid the side effects of CAR T and perform well when treated with lenalidomide rituximab (R2) or bispecific antibodies. Data from the MAGNIFY trial of patients with R/R FL indicate that patients treated with R2 who did not experience relapse less than 24 months after starting treatment and were not heavily refractory to rituximab achieved a median PFS of over 4 years, with grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in 5% of patients or less.
Treatment with bispecific antibodies, although inferior in performance to CAR T-cell therapy, may offer durable responses in some R/R CL patients without the risk of side effects associated with CAR T.
Mosunetuzumab, a bispecific antibody that is currently approved for follicular lymphoma, is designed with step-up dosing to reduce cytokine release syndrome and “achieved a complete response rate of 60% and a median PFS that looks like it’s probably about two years,” said Dr. Martin, noting that some patients continue to do well after the 3-year mark and speculated that “there will be some really long-term responders.”
In addition to the possibly durable nature of bispecific antibodies, they induce cytokine release syndrome at a much lower rate than CAR T, and most side effects are manageable in an outpatient setting, “usually just with Tylenol occasionally with a dose of steroids,” said Dr. Martin.
He contrasted this response with CAR T-cell therapy, which requires referral and travel to a specialized center for at least 1 month around the time of therapy.
Despite the differences of opinion between the presenters about whether CAR T should be used more or less in R/R FL, essentially the two specialists were making recommendations for different patient groups.
Dr. Jacobson observed that “Dr. Martin is looking at the 80% of people who do really well with follicular lymphoma." Those are the people who don’t require a third line of therapy. They are the people who don’t have PoD-24. I’m looking at the 20% of people who either do require a third line of therapy or who do have PoD-24, and we’re not treating nearly enough of those patients with follicular lymphoma.
“We’re actually arguing about treatment strategies for different populations of patients. And I think ultimately, we agree more than we disagree in the end,” she concluded.
The notion that CAR T, chemotherapy, and bispecific antibodies all have a place in treating R/R FL patients is supported by Charalambos (Babis) Andreadis, MD, hematologist at the University of California San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Care Center. “If I had a patient with follicular who relapsed 24 months or later after primary therapy and had active disease that needed treatment, most providers would do a lenalidomide-based or chemo-based regimen. Down the line either bispecific or CAR T would be appropriate in third line,” said Dr. Andreadis.
However, he noted,“for someone who is an early progressor, I would similarly not be able to use either [chemotherapy or bispecific antibodies] in second line [therapy] but would definitely think that early CART would be a good option to consider given the longevity of the observed responses so far.”
Dr. Martin disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Daiichi Sankyo, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and PeproMene. Dr. Jacobson reported relationships with AbbVie, Abintus Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Appia Bio, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Caribou Bio, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmPACT Bio, Ipsen, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, MorphoSys, Novartis, Sana, Synthekine, Kite/Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Andreadis had no disclosures.
“CAR T-cells offer patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma the most durable responses and improved chance of survival beyond all other available therapies. This holds true for a broad range of high-risk disease features in patients with relapsed or refractory FL. Furthermore, it accomplishes this with a single infusion, and a discrete toxicity that is predictable, reversible and manageable,” said Caron Jacobson, MD, MMSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
Presenting at the Great Debates & Updates Hematologic Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City, Dr. Jacobson argued that more patients with R/R FL should be treated with CAR T.
She cited follow-up results from the ZUMA-5 study indicating that patients with R/R FL treated with the CAR T axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA; Kite Pharma) have a median progression free survival (PFS) of 57.3 months and a complete response rate (CR) of 80%. Furthermore, the lymphoma-specific four-year PFS appears to be reaching a plateau, suggesting that some patients treated with the agent may be cured.
The most significant drawback of treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel is cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, which occurred at grade three and higher in 6% and 15%, of ZUMA-5 participants, respectively.
Two newer studies of anti-CD-19 CAR T-cell therapy in R/R FL, tisagenlecleucel in ELARA and lisocabtagene maraleucel in TRANSCEND FL, suggest that other CAR T-cell treatments can be as effective as axicabtagene ciloleucel, but with fewer side effects.
At a median follow up of 29 months, CR among patients in the ELARA study was 68.1%, and the overall response rate (ORR) was 86.2%. Fewer than half of patients had any CRS, and none had grade three or higher. Only 10% of patients had serious neurologic events, with only 1% of these events rated as grade three or higher.
At a median of 18.1 months, patients in the TRANSCEND FL study had a CR of 94% and an ORR of 97%. Over 58% of patients had CRS but it was grade three or higher only 1% of the time (one patient); 15% of patients had neurologic toxicity, but it was grade three or higher only 2% of the time (three patients).
Dr. Jacobson’s opponent in the debate, Peter Martin, MD, of NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, acknowledged the strong performance of CAR T in R/R FL patients but argued that they should be used only in a small subset of patients.
“About 20% of patients will experience an early recurrence or progression of diseases within 24 months (PoD-24) which is associated with worse outcomes. About half of those patients experienced transformation, so they have diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and they’re getting CAR T-cells. In the end, only 10% of patients with follicular lymphoma are relapsed or refractory and should consider getting Car T-cell therapy,” said Dr. Martin, who focused the rest of his presentation on the best options for treating patients with indolent R/R FL who did not have PoD-24.
He said these patients may be able to avoid the side effects of CAR T and perform well when treated with lenalidomide rituximab (R2) or bispecific antibodies. Data from the MAGNIFY trial of patients with R/R FL indicate that patients treated with R2 who did not experience relapse less than 24 months after starting treatment and were not heavily refractory to rituximab achieved a median PFS of over 4 years, with grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in 5% of patients or less.
Treatment with bispecific antibodies, although inferior in performance to CAR T-cell therapy, may offer durable responses in some R/R CL patients without the risk of side effects associated with CAR T.
Mosunetuzumab, a bispecific antibody that is currently approved for follicular lymphoma, is designed with step-up dosing to reduce cytokine release syndrome and “achieved a complete response rate of 60% and a median PFS that looks like it’s probably about two years,” said Dr. Martin, noting that some patients continue to do well after the 3-year mark and speculated that “there will be some really long-term responders.”
In addition to the possibly durable nature of bispecific antibodies, they induce cytokine release syndrome at a much lower rate than CAR T, and most side effects are manageable in an outpatient setting, “usually just with Tylenol occasionally with a dose of steroids,” said Dr. Martin.
He contrasted this response with CAR T-cell therapy, which requires referral and travel to a specialized center for at least 1 month around the time of therapy.
Despite the differences of opinion between the presenters about whether CAR T should be used more or less in R/R FL, essentially the two specialists were making recommendations for different patient groups.
Dr. Jacobson observed that “Dr. Martin is looking at the 80% of people who do really well with follicular lymphoma." Those are the people who don’t require a third line of therapy. They are the people who don’t have PoD-24. I’m looking at the 20% of people who either do require a third line of therapy or who do have PoD-24, and we’re not treating nearly enough of those patients with follicular lymphoma.
“We’re actually arguing about treatment strategies for different populations of patients. And I think ultimately, we agree more than we disagree in the end,” she concluded.
The notion that CAR T, chemotherapy, and bispecific antibodies all have a place in treating R/R FL patients is supported by Charalambos (Babis) Andreadis, MD, hematologist at the University of California San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Care Center. “If I had a patient with follicular who relapsed 24 months or later after primary therapy and had active disease that needed treatment, most providers would do a lenalidomide-based or chemo-based regimen. Down the line either bispecific or CAR T would be appropriate in third line,” said Dr. Andreadis.
However, he noted,“for someone who is an early progressor, I would similarly not be able to use either [chemotherapy or bispecific antibodies] in second line [therapy] but would definitely think that early CART would be a good option to consider given the longevity of the observed responses so far.”
Dr. Martin disclosed ties with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Daiichi Sankyo, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and PeproMene. Dr. Jacobson reported relationships with AbbVie, Abintus Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Appia Bio, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Caribou Bio, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmPACT Bio, Ipsen, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, MorphoSys, Novartis, Sana, Synthekine, Kite/Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Andreadis had no disclosures.