As psychiatrists, we are increasingly using digital technology, such as e-mail, video conferencing, social media, and text messaging, to communicate with and even treat our patients.¹ The benefits of using digital technology for treating patients include, but are not limited to, enhancing access to psychiatric services that are unavailable due to a patient’s geographical location and/or physical disability; providing more cost‐effective delivery of services; and creating more ways for patients to communicate with their physicians.¹ While there are benefits to using digital technology, there are also possible repercussions, such as breaches of confidentiality or boundary violations.² Although there is no evidence-based guidance about how to best use digital technology in patient care,³ the following approaches can help you protect your patients and minimize your liability.

Assess competence. Determine how familiar and comfortable both you and your patient are with the specific software and/or devices you intend to use. Confirm that your patient can access the technology, and inform them of the benefits and risks of using digital technology in their care.¹

Create a written policy about your use of digital technology, and review it with all patients to explain how it will be used in their treatment.¹ This policy should include a back-up plan in the event of technology failures.¹ It should clearly explain that the information gathered with this technology can become part of the patient’s medical record. It should also prohibit patients from using their devices to record other patients in the waiting room or other areas. Such a policy could enhance the protection of private information and help maintain clear boundaries.¹ Review and update your policy as often as needed.

Obtain your patients’ written consent to use digital technology. If you want to post information about your patients on social media, obtain their written consent to do so, and mutually agree as to what information would be posted. This should not include their identity or confidential information.¹

Do not accept friend requests or contact requests from current or former patients on any social networking platform. Do not follow your patients’ blogs, Twitter accounts, or any other accounts. Be aware that if you and your patients share the same “friend” network on social media, this may create boundary confusion, inappropriate dual relationships, and potential conflicts of interest.¹ Keep personal and professional accounts separate to maintain appropriate boundaries and minimize compromising patient confidentiality. Do not post private information on professional practice accounts, and do not link/sync your personal accounts with professional accounts.

Do not store patient information on your personal electronic devices because these devices could be lost or hacked. Avoid contacting your patients via non-secured platforms because doing so could compromise patient confidentiality. Use encrypted software and firewalls for communicating with your patients and storing their information.¹ Also, periodically assess your confidentiality policies and procedures to ensure compliance with appropriate statutes and laws.¹

As psychiatrists, we are increasingly using digital technology, such as e-mail, video conferencing, social media, and text messaging, to communicate with and even treat our patients.¹ The benefits of using digital technology for treating patients include, but are not limited to, enhancing access to psychiatric services that are unavailable due to a patient’s geographical location and/or physical disability; providing more cost‐effective delivery of services; and creating more ways for patients to communicate with their physicians.¹ While there are benefits to using digital technology, there are also possible repercussions, such as breaches of confidentiality or boundary violations.² Although there is no evidence-based guidance about how to best use digital technology in patient care,³ the following approaches can help you protect your patients and minimize your liability.

Assess competence. Determine how familiar and comfortable both you and your patient are with the specific software and/or devices you intend to use. Confirm that your patient can access the technology, and inform them of the benefits and risks of using digital technology in their care.¹

Create a written policy about your use of digital technology, and review it with all patients to explain how it will be used in their treatment.¹ This policy should include a back-up plan in the event of technology failures.¹ It should clearly explain that the information gathered with this technology can become part of the patient’s medical record. It should also prohibit patients from using their devices to record other patients in the waiting room or other areas. Such a policy could enhance the protection of private information and help maintain clear boundaries.¹ Review and update your policy as often as needed.

Obtain your patients’ written consent to use digital technology. If you want to post information about your patients on social media, obtain their written consent to do so, and mutually agree as to what information would be posted. This should not include their identity or confidential information.¹

Do not accept friend requests or contact requests from current or former patients on any social networking platform. Do not follow your patients’ blogs, Twitter accounts, or any other accounts. Be aware that if you and your patients share the same “friend” network on social media, this may create boundary confusion, inappropriate dual relationships, and potential conflicts of interest.¹ Keep personal and professional accounts separate to maintain appropriate boundaries and minimize compromising patient confidentiality. Do not post private information on professional practice accounts, and do not link/sync your personal accounts with professional accounts.

Do not store patient information on your personal electronic devices because these devices could be lost or hacked. Avoid contacting your patients via non-secured platforms because doing so could compromise patient confidentiality. Use encrypted software and firewalls for communicating with your patients and storing their information.¹ Also, periodically assess your confidentiality policies and procedures to ensure compliance with appropriate statutes and laws.¹

As psychiatrists, we are increasingly using digital technology, such as e-mail, video conferencing, social media, and text messaging, to communicate with and even treat our patients.¹ The benefits of using digital technology for treating patients include, but are not limited to, enhancing access to psychiatric services that are unavailable due to a patient’s geographical location and/or physical disability; providing more cost‐effective delivery of services; and creating more ways for patients to communicate with their physicians.¹ While there are benefits to using digital technology, there are also possible repercussions, such as breaches of confidentiality or boundary violations.² Although there is no evidence-based guidance about how to best use digital technology in patient care,³ the following approaches can help you protect your patients and minimize your liability.

Assess competence. Determine how familiar and comfortable both you and your patient are with the specific software and/or devices you intend to use. Confirm that your patient can access the technology, and inform them of the benefits and risks of using digital technology in their care.¹

Create a written policy about your use of digital technology, and review it with all patients to explain how it will be used in their treatment.¹ This policy should include a back-up plan in the event of technology failures.¹ It should clearly explain that the information gathered with this technology can become part of the patient’s medical record. It should also prohibit patients from using their devices to record other patients in the waiting room or other areas. Such a policy could enhance the protection of private information and help maintain clear boundaries.¹ Review and update your policy as often as needed.

Obtain your patients’ written consent to use digital technology. If you want to post information about your patients on social media, obtain their written consent to do so, and mutually agree as to what information would be posted. This should not include their identity or confidential information.¹

Do not accept friend requests or contact requests from current or former patients on any social networking platform. Do not follow your patients’ blogs, Twitter accounts, or any other accounts. Be aware that if you and your patients share the same “friend” network on social media, this may create boundary confusion, inappropriate dual relationships, and potential conflicts of interest.¹ Keep personal and professional accounts separate to maintain appropriate boundaries and minimize compromising patient confidentiality. Do not post private information on professional practice accounts, and do not link/sync your personal accounts with professional accounts.

Do not store patient information on your personal electronic devices because these devices could be lost or hacked. Avoid contacting your patients via non-secured platforms because doing so could compromise patient confidentiality. Use encrypted software and firewalls for communicating with your patients and storing their information.¹ Also, periodically assess your confidentiality policies and procedures to ensure compliance with appropriate statutes and laws.¹

Social media might be the way to go for authors hoping to bump up the number of times their articles are cited by other articles, according to a presentation at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology that showed how Altmetric scores influence citation rates in journals.

Altmetrics are nontraditional bibliometrics designed to calculate scholarly impact based on online attention. The Altmetric Attention Score and donut provide a collated record of online attention. The colorful badge, which accompanies an increasing number of journal papers online, offers readers a full record of all original shares and mentions of an individual piece of scholarly content across a range of platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, online news media, blogs, Google+, Mendeley, and others.

Dimensions badges, also found on journal sites, count citations from any kind of scientific or mainstream publication. Journal citations remain one of the most recognized proxies for impact in medical research.

Assessing data from over 2,000 articles published in the two official journals of the European League Against Rheumatism – Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (ARD) and RMD Open – during January 2015–November 2019, Paul Studenic, MD, PhD (@Stiddyo), of the Medical University of Vienna, and coauthor Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD (@CarolineOspelt), of University Hospital Zürich, found that Altmetric Attention Scores are higher for articles published more recently, with Twitter showing by far the highest activity among the score’s subcategories.

“The total number of Twitter mentions increased by 2.8 per year from 2015 to 2019, indicating that more recently published articles were more often picked up on Twitter,” Dr. Studenic said in an interview. He noted that only original tweets that link to an article are given a full count of 1, while retweets or reposts have less impact on the score.

There are exceptions to this finding that newer articles have higher scores than older articles, he noted. A rheumatology article with one of the highest Altmetric Attention Scores (407) is a piece on the effect of habitual knuckle cracking that published in ARD in 1990. “It has one of the most colorful donuts with 42 news outlets, plus blogs, tweets, Facebook pages, Wikipedia mentions, and Mendeley reads,” Dr. Studenic said. But the article’s citation count is only 20.

“I would not say that the Altmetric Score has anything to do with the quality of the study, it’s just a measure of online popularity. So, you might be a brilliant research team that published a perfect study, but it is not of that much interest to editors, or it might not be tweeted by the journal itself because it was not found to be that interesting. In this case you will get your citations through your scientific community,” he said.

“Particularly if you look now at Altmetric Scores for what is being published on COVID-19, the numbers do not represent at all any profoundness of scientific quality, but there is a lot of tweeting of these articles and a lot of attention,” he said.

Overall, the odds for reaching the top 25% of citations increased with the time since publication. The time since publication accounted for 10% of the variability in the probability of reaching the top 25% of citations, whereas the Altmetric Attention Score accounted for about 5% of the variability.

Besides time since publication and Altmetric Attention Score, the type of article also influences citation count, the researchers found. The Altmetric Attention Score was more likely to boost the citation rate for original research and editorials, but it did little for correspondences.

The influence of Altmetric Attention Score on citation count of editorials added 16% to the 12% of variability explained by publication time. “We never found an effect for correspondence articles,” Dr. Studenic added.

Online popularity is something more likely to favor younger researchers, given their greater engagement online, he said. But he stressed that social media savvy is not absolutely necessary. “If you aren’t on social media and you want to build up a network, you can still do it by other means and your manuscript will still be seen, but I would say in that case that the attention kind of runs behind your back, whereas if you’re active on social media, you can steer it more effectively.”

The study had no outside funding. Both authors are social media advisers to ARD and RMD Open, and Dr. Ospelt is an associate editor of RMD Open and an editorial board member of ARD. Dr. Studenic reported receiving research or grant support from AbbVie, and Dr. Ospelt reported receiving consultancy fees from Gilead Sciences.

SOURCE: Studenic P and Ospelt C. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(suppl 1):208.

Social media might be the way to go for authors hoping to bump up the number of times their articles are cited by other articles, according to a presentation at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology that showed how Altmetric scores influence citation rates in journals.

Altmetrics are nontraditional bibliometrics designed to calculate scholarly impact based on online attention. The Altmetric Attention Score and donut provide a collated record of online attention. The colorful badge, which accompanies an increasing number of journal papers online, offers readers a full record of all original shares and mentions of an individual piece of scholarly content across a range of platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, online news media, blogs, Google+, Mendeley, and others.

Dimensions badges, also found on journal sites, count citations from any kind of scientific or mainstream publication. Journal citations remain one of the most recognized proxies for impact in medical research.

Assessing data from over 2,000 articles published in the two official journals of the European League Against Rheumatism – Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (ARD) and RMD Open – during January 2015–November 2019, Paul Studenic, MD, PhD (@Stiddyo), of the Medical University of Vienna, and coauthor Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD (@CarolineOspelt), of University Hospital Zürich, found that Altmetric Attention Scores are higher for articles published more recently, with Twitter showing by far the highest activity among the score’s subcategories.

“The total number of Twitter mentions increased by 2.8 per year from 2015 to 2019, indicating that more recently published articles were more often picked up on Twitter,” Dr. Studenic said in an interview. He noted that only original tweets that link to an article are given a full count of 1, while retweets or reposts have less impact on the score.

There are exceptions to this finding that newer articles have higher scores than older articles, he noted. A rheumatology article with one of the highest Altmetric Attention Scores (407) is a piece on the effect of habitual knuckle cracking that published in ARD in 1990. “It has one of the most colorful donuts with 42 news outlets, plus blogs, tweets, Facebook pages, Wikipedia mentions, and Mendeley reads,” Dr. Studenic said. But the article’s citation count is only 20.

“I would not say that the Altmetric Score has anything to do with the quality of the study, it’s just a measure of online popularity. So, you might be a brilliant research team that published a perfect study, but it is not of that much interest to editors, or it might not be tweeted by the journal itself because it was not found to be that interesting. In this case you will get your citations through your scientific community,” he said.

“Particularly if you look now at Altmetric Scores for what is being published on COVID-19, the numbers do not represent at all any profoundness of scientific quality, but there is a lot of tweeting of these articles and a lot of attention,” he said.

Overall, the odds for reaching the top 25% of citations increased with the time since publication. The time since publication accounted for 10% of the variability in the probability of reaching the top 25% of citations, whereas the Altmetric Attention Score accounted for about 5% of the variability.

Besides time since publication and Altmetric Attention Score, the type of article also influences citation count, the researchers found. The Altmetric Attention Score was more likely to boost the citation rate for original research and editorials, but it did little for correspondences.

The influence of Altmetric Attention Score on citation count of editorials added 16% to the 12% of variability explained by publication time. “We never found an effect for correspondence articles,” Dr. Studenic added.

Online popularity is something more likely to favor younger researchers, given their greater engagement online, he said. But he stressed that social media savvy is not absolutely necessary. “If you aren’t on social media and you want to build up a network, you can still do it by other means and your manuscript will still be seen, but I would say in that case that the attention kind of runs behind your back, whereas if you’re active on social media, you can steer it more effectively.”

The study had no outside funding. Both authors are social media advisers to ARD and RMD Open, and Dr. Ospelt is an associate editor of RMD Open and an editorial board member of ARD. Dr. Studenic reported receiving research or grant support from AbbVie, and Dr. Ospelt reported receiving consultancy fees from Gilead Sciences.

SOURCE: Studenic P and Ospelt C. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(suppl 1):208.

Social media might be the way to go for authors hoping to bump up the number of times their articles are cited by other articles, according to a presentation at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology that showed how Altmetric scores influence citation rates in journals.

Altmetrics are nontraditional bibliometrics designed to calculate scholarly impact based on online attention. The Altmetric Attention Score and donut provide a collated record of online attention. The colorful badge, which accompanies an increasing number of journal papers online, offers readers a full record of all original shares and mentions of an individual piece of scholarly content across a range of platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, online news media, blogs, Google+, Mendeley, and others.

Dimensions badges, also found on journal sites, count citations from any kind of scientific or mainstream publication. Journal citations remain one of the most recognized proxies for impact in medical research.

Assessing data from over 2,000 articles published in the two official journals of the European League Against Rheumatism – Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (ARD) and RMD Open – during January 2015–November 2019, Paul Studenic, MD, PhD (@Stiddyo), of the Medical University of Vienna, and coauthor Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD (@CarolineOspelt), of University Hospital Zürich, found that Altmetric Attention Scores are higher for articles published more recently, with Twitter showing by far the highest activity among the score’s subcategories.

“The total number of Twitter mentions increased by 2.8 per year from 2015 to 2019, indicating that more recently published articles were more often picked up on Twitter,” Dr. Studenic said in an interview. He noted that only original tweets that link to an article are given a full count of 1, while retweets or reposts have less impact on the score.

There are exceptions to this finding that newer articles have higher scores than older articles, he noted. A rheumatology article with one of the highest Altmetric Attention Scores (407) is a piece on the effect of habitual knuckle cracking that published in ARD in 1990. “It has one of the most colorful donuts with 42 news outlets, plus blogs, tweets, Facebook pages, Wikipedia mentions, and Mendeley reads,” Dr. Studenic said. But the article’s citation count is only 20.

“I would not say that the Altmetric Score has anything to do with the quality of the study, it’s just a measure of online popularity. So, you might be a brilliant research team that published a perfect study, but it is not of that much interest to editors, or it might not be tweeted by the journal itself because it was not found to be that interesting. In this case you will get your citations through your scientific community,” he said.

“Particularly if you look now at Altmetric Scores for what is being published on COVID-19, the numbers do not represent at all any profoundness of scientific quality, but there is a lot of tweeting of these articles and a lot of attention,” he said.

Overall, the odds for reaching the top 25% of citations increased with the time since publication. The time since publication accounted for 10% of the variability in the probability of reaching the top 25% of citations, whereas the Altmetric Attention Score accounted for about 5% of the variability.

Besides time since publication and Altmetric Attention Score, the type of article also influences citation count, the researchers found. The Altmetric Attention Score was more likely to boost the citation rate for original research and editorials, but it did little for correspondences.

The influence of Altmetric Attention Score on citation count of editorials added 16% to the 12% of variability explained by publication time. “We never found an effect for correspondence articles,” Dr. Studenic added.

Online popularity is something more likely to favor younger researchers, given their greater engagement online, he said. But he stressed that social media savvy is not absolutely necessary. “If you aren’t on social media and you want to build up a network, you can still do it by other means and your manuscript will still be seen, but I would say in that case that the attention kind of runs behind your back, whereas if you’re active on social media, you can steer it more effectively.”

The study had no outside funding. Both authors are social media advisers to ARD and RMD Open, and Dr. Ospelt is an associate editor of RMD Open and an editorial board member of ARD. Dr. Studenic reported receiving research or grant support from AbbVie, and Dr. Ospelt reported receiving consultancy fees from Gilead Sciences.

SOURCE: Studenic P and Ospelt C. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(suppl 1):208.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Many physicians live within their means and save

Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, about half report that they are living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

Net worth figures varied greatly by specialty. Among specialists, orthopedists were most likely (at 19%) to top the $5 million level, followed by plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists (both at 16%). Conversely, 46% of family physicians and 44% of pediatricians reported that their net worth was under $500,000. Gender gaps were also apparent in the data, especially at the highest levels. Twice as many male physicians (10%) as their female counterparts (5%) had a net worth of more than $5 million.

Asked about saving habits, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Just 7% said they live above their means. How do they save money? Survey respondents reported putting bonus money into an investment account, putting extra money toward paying down the mortgage, and bringing lunch to work everyday.

The survey responses on salary, debt, and net worth from more than 17,000 physicians spanning 30 specialties were collected prior to Feb. 11, before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic. Read more.
 

Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials launching in July

There are now 120 Investigational New Drug applications to the Food and Drug Administration for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and researchers at more than 70 companies across the globe are interested in making a vaccine, according to Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“The good news is that the new coronavirus is relatively stable,” Dr. Offit said during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “Although it is a single-stranded RNA virus, it does mutate to some extent, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to mutate away from the vaccine. So, this is not going to be like influenza virus, where you must give a vaccine every year. I think we can make a vaccine that will last for several years. And we know the protein we’re interested in. We’re interested in antibodies directed against the spike glycoprotein, which is abundantly present on the surface of the virus. We know that if we make an antibody response to that protein, we can therefore prevent infection.” Read more.

FDA approves in-home breast cancer treatment

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination of subcutaneous breast cancer treatments that could be administered at home, following completion of chemotherapy.

The agency gave the green light to pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech/Roche), trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech/Roche) and hyaluronidase (Phesgo, Genentech/Roche), administered subcutaneously rather than intravenously, for the treatment of early and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancers.

Phesgo is initially used in combination with chemotherapy at an infusion center but could continue to be administered in a patient’s home by a qualified health care professional once chemotherapy is complete. Read more.

Could a visual tool aid migraine management?

A new visual tool aims to streamline patient-clinician communication about risk factors for progression from episodic to chronic migraines.

The tool is still just a prototype, but it could eventually synthesize patient responses to an integrated questionnaire and produce a chart illustrating where the patient stands with respect to a range of modifiable risk factors from depression to insomnia.

Physicians must see patients in short appointment periods, making it difficult to communicate all of the risk factors and behavioral characteristics that can contribute to risk of progression. “If you have a patient and you’re able to look at a visualization tool quickly and say: ‘Okay, my patient really is having insomnia and sleep issues,’ you can focus the session talking about sleep, cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, and all the things we can help patients with,” lead researcher Ami Cuneo, MD, who is a headache fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Dr. Cuneo presented a poster describing the concept at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Many physicians live within their means and save

Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, about half report that they are living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

Net worth figures varied greatly by specialty. Among specialists, orthopedists were most likely (at 19%) to top the $5 million level, followed by plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists (both at 16%). Conversely, 46% of family physicians and 44% of pediatricians reported that their net worth was under $500,000. Gender gaps were also apparent in the data, especially at the highest levels. Twice as many male physicians (10%) as their female counterparts (5%) had a net worth of more than $5 million.

Asked about saving habits, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Just 7% said they live above their means. How do they save money? Survey respondents reported putting bonus money into an investment account, putting extra money toward paying down the mortgage, and bringing lunch to work everyday.

The survey responses on salary, debt, and net worth from more than 17,000 physicians spanning 30 specialties were collected prior to Feb. 11, before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic. Read more.
 

Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials launching in July

There are now 120 Investigational New Drug applications to the Food and Drug Administration for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and researchers at more than 70 companies across the globe are interested in making a vaccine, according to Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“The good news is that the new coronavirus is relatively stable,” Dr. Offit said during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “Although it is a single-stranded RNA virus, it does mutate to some extent, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to mutate away from the vaccine. So, this is not going to be like influenza virus, where you must give a vaccine every year. I think we can make a vaccine that will last for several years. And we know the protein we’re interested in. We’re interested in antibodies directed against the spike glycoprotein, which is abundantly present on the surface of the virus. We know that if we make an antibody response to that protein, we can therefore prevent infection.” Read more.

FDA approves in-home breast cancer treatment

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination of subcutaneous breast cancer treatments that could be administered at home, following completion of chemotherapy.

The agency gave the green light to pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech/Roche), trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech/Roche) and hyaluronidase (Phesgo, Genentech/Roche), administered subcutaneously rather than intravenously, for the treatment of early and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancers.

Phesgo is initially used in combination with chemotherapy at an infusion center but could continue to be administered in a patient’s home by a qualified health care professional once chemotherapy is complete. Read more.

Could a visual tool aid migraine management?

A new visual tool aims to streamline patient-clinician communication about risk factors for progression from episodic to chronic migraines.

The tool is still just a prototype, but it could eventually synthesize patient responses to an integrated questionnaire and produce a chart illustrating where the patient stands with respect to a range of modifiable risk factors from depression to insomnia.

Physicians must see patients in short appointment periods, making it difficult to communicate all of the risk factors and behavioral characteristics that can contribute to risk of progression. “If you have a patient and you’re able to look at a visualization tool quickly and say: ‘Okay, my patient really is having insomnia and sleep issues,’ you can focus the session talking about sleep, cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, and all the things we can help patients with,” lead researcher Ami Cuneo, MD, who is a headache fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Dr. Cuneo presented a poster describing the concept at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Many physicians live within their means and save

Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, about half report that they are living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

Net worth figures varied greatly by specialty. Among specialists, orthopedists were most likely (at 19%) to top the $5 million level, followed by plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists (both at 16%). Conversely, 46% of family physicians and 44% of pediatricians reported that their net worth was under $500,000. Gender gaps were also apparent in the data, especially at the highest levels. Twice as many male physicians (10%) as their female counterparts (5%) had a net worth of more than $5 million.

Asked about saving habits, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Just 7% said they live above their means. How do they save money? Survey respondents reported putting bonus money into an investment account, putting extra money toward paying down the mortgage, and bringing lunch to work everyday.

The survey responses on salary, debt, and net worth from more than 17,000 physicians spanning 30 specialties were collected prior to Feb. 11, before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic. Read more.
 

Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials launching in July

There are now 120 Investigational New Drug applications to the Food and Drug Administration for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and researchers at more than 70 companies across the globe are interested in making a vaccine, according to Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“The good news is that the new coronavirus is relatively stable,” Dr. Offit said during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “Although it is a single-stranded RNA virus, it does mutate to some extent, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to mutate away from the vaccine. So, this is not going to be like influenza virus, where you must give a vaccine every year. I think we can make a vaccine that will last for several years. And we know the protein we’re interested in. We’re interested in antibodies directed against the spike glycoprotein, which is abundantly present on the surface of the virus. We know that if we make an antibody response to that protein, we can therefore prevent infection.” Read more.

FDA approves in-home breast cancer treatment

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination of subcutaneous breast cancer treatments that could be administered at home, following completion of chemotherapy.

The agency gave the green light to pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech/Roche), trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech/Roche) and hyaluronidase (Phesgo, Genentech/Roche), administered subcutaneously rather than intravenously, for the treatment of early and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancers.

Phesgo is initially used in combination with chemotherapy at an infusion center but could continue to be administered in a patient’s home by a qualified health care professional once chemotherapy is complete. Read more.

Could a visual tool aid migraine management?

A new visual tool aims to streamline patient-clinician communication about risk factors for progression from episodic to chronic migraines.

The tool is still just a prototype, but it could eventually synthesize patient responses to an integrated questionnaire and produce a chart illustrating where the patient stands with respect to a range of modifiable risk factors from depression to insomnia.

Physicians must see patients in short appointment periods, making it difficult to communicate all of the risk factors and behavioral characteristics that can contribute to risk of progression. “If you have a patient and you’re able to look at a visualization tool quickly and say: ‘Okay, my patient really is having insomnia and sleep issues,’ you can focus the session talking about sleep, cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, and all the things we can help patients with,” lead researcher Ami Cuneo, MD, who is a headache fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Dr. Cuneo presented a poster describing the concept at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

The oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) LSZ102 plus either ribociclib or alpelisib shows manageable safety and encouraging clinical activity in heavily pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer patients who progressed after prior endocrine therapy, according to interim results of an open-label phase 1/1b study.

The effects seen in the study, which is the first to report on an oral SERD in combination with both CDK4/6 and PI3Ka inhibitors, occurred regardless of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, said Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Jhaveri reported the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

The overall response rate (ORR) among 78 patients enrolled in an LSZ102 monotherapy arm (arm A) was 1.3%, and the progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 9.1%.

Among 76 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+ribociclib arm (arm B), the ORR was 15.8%, the PFS was 6.2 months, and the CBR was 35.5%.

Among the 39 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+alpelisib arm (arm C), the ORR was 5.4%, the PFS was 3.5 months, and the CBR was 18.9%.

After the data cutoff, one additional partial response (PR) was reported in arm C, Dr. Jhaveri said, noting that two of three confirmed responses were in known PIKC3A-mutant patients.

Study participants were aged 18 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of ER-positive breast cancer and good performance status, as well as evidence of progression after endocrine therapy for metastatic disease or evidence of progression while on therapy or within 12 months from the end of adjuvant therapy.

“For all arms, prior fulvestrant, CDK46 inhibitor, or chemotherapy were allowed. For arm C, patients with or without PIK3C were eligible, and no prior treatment with PIK3, mTOR, or AKT inhibitors was allowed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Dosing in the LSZ102 monotherapy arm ranged from 200 to 900 mg. Arm B patients received LSZ102 at doses of 200-600 mg and ribociclib at doses of 200-600 mg. Both continuous ribociclib and 3 weeks on/1 week off dosing were evaluated. Arm C patients received LSZ102 at doses of 300-450 mg and alpelisib at 200-300 mg.

The recommended expansion doses were 450 mg daily of LSZ102 for arm A and 450 mg LSZ102 with 400 mg of daily ribociclib for arm B. For arm C, they were 300 mg LSZ102 with 250 mg of alpelisib daily.

Of note, two of three patients with a PR in arm C had received 300 mg LSZ102 and 300 mg alpelisib, Dr. Jhaveri said.

Arm A and arm B results were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The current report updates those findings and presents arm C data for the first time, Dr. Jhaveri said.

LSZ102 was relatively well-tolerated as a single agent and in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, according to Dr. Jhaveri. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal toxicities, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and decreased appetite, which occurred across all arms.

Neutropenia and aspartate aminotransferase abnormalities, including grade 3 cases, were reported in arm B and were most likely driven by the ribociclib, Dr. Jhaveri said. Grade 3 hypoglycemia and skin rash commonly occurred in arm C, most likely driven by the alpelisib.

Five dose-limiting toxicities occurred in four patients in arm A, three occurred in two patients in arm B, and seven occurred in seven patients in arm C.

Paired biopsies collected at the time of screening and at day 15 of cycle 1 showed consistent down-regulation of ER protein levels across arms.

“No substantial dose-dependent down-regulation of the ER was observed with increasing doses of LSZ,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis showed that the dominant mutations across the arms were ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53. These were not shown to correlate with response and were not enriched upon progression in patients with matched baseline and end-of-treatment samples, she noted.

An exploratory analysis, conducted in “a preliminary attempt to correlate clinical activity with specific mutations,” showed that, in arms B and C, respectively, ORR, CBR, and PFS weren’t correlated with the presence or absence of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, respectively, or the absence of detectable ctDNA from baseline samples, Dr. Jhaveri said.

“While numerically higher responses and better CBR were seen in patients with undetectable ctDNA at baseline, no statistically significant difference in any of these outcomes was observed in arms B and C,” she said.

In arm C, the numbers were small at the time of data cutoff, but incoming data suggest relatively enhanced activity of the LSZ102 plus alpelisib combination in PIKC3A-mutant patients, she noted.

“We know that inhibiting ER signaling is the mainstay of treatment for ER-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Jhaveri explained, adding that aromatase inhibitors, estrogen receptor modulators, and SERDs are important classes of antiestrogenic agents, but fulvestrant is the only approved SERD. These are effective, but many patients develop resistance, she said.

“Proposed mechanisms for endocrine resistance include activation of the cell-cycle and cell-survival signaling pathways, or of the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway,” Dr. Jhaveri said. “To that end, ribociclib, a CDK46 inhibitor plus fulvestrant improved survival compared to fulvestrant alone in patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.”

More recently, the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib plus fulvestrant also nearly doubled PFS vs. fulvestrant alone in PIKC3A-mutant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer, which led to the approval of the combination in the United States.

Another mechanism of endocrine resistance includes acquisition of activating mutations in the estrogen receptor gene itself that allow tumors to survive and proliferate without depending on estrogen.

EGFR mutations appear to predict resistance to aromatase inhibitor therapies, but not outcomes in patients treated with fulvestrant. However, fulvestrant, which is delivered by intramuscular injection, has its own limitations, Dr. Jhaveri said.

“LSZ102 is a novel SERD that could achieve higher exposure than fulvestrant, leading to enhanced efficacy,” she said, noting that it was shown in preclinical models to have activity and to be synergistic in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, forming the basis for the current study.

Invited discussant, Saverio Cinieri, MD, of Ospedale Antonio Perrino, Brindisi, Italy, said the study “elegantly demonstrated that estrogen receptor protein is down-regulated by LSZ102; [that] the genomic landscape of heavily pretreated patients is dominated by mutations in ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53; [that] common mutations do not correlate with response and are not enriched on progression; [and that] ctDNA analysis at baseline shows similar outcomes with LSZ plus ribociclib or alpelisib, regardless of mutational status.”

LSZ102 is one of four new-generation SERDs in early-phase studies, he said, concluding that “in the COVID-19 era, the use of oral therapies will be even more necessary to limit access to the hospital.”

Dr. Cinieri also said that overcoming the limitations “of a molecule like the intramuscularly administered fulvestrant goes in this direction,” and that “the clinical efficacy and the biomolecular profile of LSZ102 seems to be able to meet these real needs.”

This study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Jhaveri reported advisory and consultancy roles and/or research grants or other funding to her institution from Novartis, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Cinieri reported relationships with Lily Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, including honoraria, grant and research support to his institution, advisory board participation, and scientific meeting support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jhaveri K et al. ESMO Breast Cancer, Abstract LBA1.

The oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) LSZ102 plus either ribociclib or alpelisib shows manageable safety and encouraging clinical activity in heavily pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer patients who progressed after prior endocrine therapy, according to interim results of an open-label phase 1/1b study.

The effects seen in the study, which is the first to report on an oral SERD in combination with both CDK4/6 and PI3Ka inhibitors, occurred regardless of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, said Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Jhaveri reported the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

The overall response rate (ORR) among 78 patients enrolled in an LSZ102 monotherapy arm (arm A) was 1.3%, and the progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 9.1%.

Among 76 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+ribociclib arm (arm B), the ORR was 15.8%, the PFS was 6.2 months, and the CBR was 35.5%.

Among the 39 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+alpelisib arm (arm C), the ORR was 5.4%, the PFS was 3.5 months, and the CBR was 18.9%.

After the data cutoff, one additional partial response (PR) was reported in arm C, Dr. Jhaveri said, noting that two of three confirmed responses were in known PIKC3A-mutant patients.

Study participants were aged 18 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of ER-positive breast cancer and good performance status, as well as evidence of progression after endocrine therapy for metastatic disease or evidence of progression while on therapy or within 12 months from the end of adjuvant therapy.

“For all arms, prior fulvestrant, CDK46 inhibitor, or chemotherapy were allowed. For arm C, patients with or without PIK3C were eligible, and no prior treatment with PIK3, mTOR, or AKT inhibitors was allowed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Dosing in the LSZ102 monotherapy arm ranged from 200 to 900 mg. Arm B patients received LSZ102 at doses of 200-600 mg and ribociclib at doses of 200-600 mg. Both continuous ribociclib and 3 weeks on/1 week off dosing were evaluated. Arm C patients received LSZ102 at doses of 300-450 mg and alpelisib at 200-300 mg.

The recommended expansion doses were 450 mg daily of LSZ102 for arm A and 450 mg LSZ102 with 400 mg of daily ribociclib for arm B. For arm C, they were 300 mg LSZ102 with 250 mg of alpelisib daily.

Of note, two of three patients with a PR in arm C had received 300 mg LSZ102 and 300 mg alpelisib, Dr. Jhaveri said.

Arm A and arm B results were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The current report updates those findings and presents arm C data for the first time, Dr. Jhaveri said.

LSZ102 was relatively well-tolerated as a single agent and in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, according to Dr. Jhaveri. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal toxicities, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and decreased appetite, which occurred across all arms.

Neutropenia and aspartate aminotransferase abnormalities, including grade 3 cases, were reported in arm B and were most likely driven by the ribociclib, Dr. Jhaveri said. Grade 3 hypoglycemia and skin rash commonly occurred in arm C, most likely driven by the alpelisib.

Five dose-limiting toxicities occurred in four patients in arm A, three occurred in two patients in arm B, and seven occurred in seven patients in arm C.

Paired biopsies collected at the time of screening and at day 15 of cycle 1 showed consistent down-regulation of ER protein levels across arms.

“No substantial dose-dependent down-regulation of the ER was observed with increasing doses of LSZ,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis showed that the dominant mutations across the arms were ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53. These were not shown to correlate with response and were not enriched upon progression in patients with matched baseline and end-of-treatment samples, she noted.

An exploratory analysis, conducted in “a preliminary attempt to correlate clinical activity with specific mutations,” showed that, in arms B and C, respectively, ORR, CBR, and PFS weren’t correlated with the presence or absence of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, respectively, or the absence of detectable ctDNA from baseline samples, Dr. Jhaveri said.

“While numerically higher responses and better CBR were seen in patients with undetectable ctDNA at baseline, no statistically significant difference in any of these outcomes was observed in arms B and C,” she said.

In arm C, the numbers were small at the time of data cutoff, but incoming data suggest relatively enhanced activity of the LSZ102 plus alpelisib combination in PIKC3A-mutant patients, she noted.

“We know that inhibiting ER signaling is the mainstay of treatment for ER-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Jhaveri explained, adding that aromatase inhibitors, estrogen receptor modulators, and SERDs are important classes of antiestrogenic agents, but fulvestrant is the only approved SERD. These are effective, but many patients develop resistance, she said.

“Proposed mechanisms for endocrine resistance include activation of the cell-cycle and cell-survival signaling pathways, or of the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway,” Dr. Jhaveri said. “To that end, ribociclib, a CDK46 inhibitor plus fulvestrant improved survival compared to fulvestrant alone in patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.”

More recently, the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib plus fulvestrant also nearly doubled PFS vs. fulvestrant alone in PIKC3A-mutant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer, which led to the approval of the combination in the United States.

Another mechanism of endocrine resistance includes acquisition of activating mutations in the estrogen receptor gene itself that allow tumors to survive and proliferate without depending on estrogen.

EGFR mutations appear to predict resistance to aromatase inhibitor therapies, but not outcomes in patients treated with fulvestrant. However, fulvestrant, which is delivered by intramuscular injection, has its own limitations, Dr. Jhaveri said.

“LSZ102 is a novel SERD that could achieve higher exposure than fulvestrant, leading to enhanced efficacy,” she said, noting that it was shown in preclinical models to have activity and to be synergistic in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, forming the basis for the current study.

Invited discussant, Saverio Cinieri, MD, of Ospedale Antonio Perrino, Brindisi, Italy, said the study “elegantly demonstrated that estrogen receptor protein is down-regulated by LSZ102; [that] the genomic landscape of heavily pretreated patients is dominated by mutations in ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53; [that] common mutations do not correlate with response and are not enriched on progression; [and that] ctDNA analysis at baseline shows similar outcomes with LSZ plus ribociclib or alpelisib, regardless of mutational status.”

LSZ102 is one of four new-generation SERDs in early-phase studies, he said, concluding that “in the COVID-19 era, the use of oral therapies will be even more necessary to limit access to the hospital.”

Dr. Cinieri also said that overcoming the limitations “of a molecule like the intramuscularly administered fulvestrant goes in this direction,” and that “the clinical efficacy and the biomolecular profile of LSZ102 seems to be able to meet these real needs.”

This study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Jhaveri reported advisory and consultancy roles and/or research grants or other funding to her institution from Novartis, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Cinieri reported relationships with Lily Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, including honoraria, grant and research support to his institution, advisory board participation, and scientific meeting support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jhaveri K et al. ESMO Breast Cancer, Abstract LBA1.

The oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) LSZ102 plus either ribociclib or alpelisib shows manageable safety and encouraging clinical activity in heavily pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer patients who progressed after prior endocrine therapy, according to interim results of an open-label phase 1/1b study.

The effects seen in the study, which is the first to report on an oral SERD in combination with both CDK4/6 and PI3Ka inhibitors, occurred regardless of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, said Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Jhaveri reported the results at the European Society of Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

The overall response rate (ORR) among 78 patients enrolled in an LSZ102 monotherapy arm (arm A) was 1.3%, and the progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 9.1%.

Among 76 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+ribociclib arm (arm B), the ORR was 15.8%, the PFS was 6.2 months, and the CBR was 35.5%.

Among the 39 patients enrolled in an LSZ102+alpelisib arm (arm C), the ORR was 5.4%, the PFS was 3.5 months, and the CBR was 18.9%.

After the data cutoff, one additional partial response (PR) was reported in arm C, Dr. Jhaveri said, noting that two of three confirmed responses were in known PIKC3A-mutant patients.

Study participants were aged 18 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of ER-positive breast cancer and good performance status, as well as evidence of progression after endocrine therapy for metastatic disease or evidence of progression while on therapy or within 12 months from the end of adjuvant therapy.

“For all arms, prior fulvestrant, CDK46 inhibitor, or chemotherapy were allowed. For arm C, patients with or without PIK3C were eligible, and no prior treatment with PIK3, mTOR, or AKT inhibitors was allowed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Dosing in the LSZ102 monotherapy arm ranged from 200 to 900 mg. Arm B patients received LSZ102 at doses of 200-600 mg and ribociclib at doses of 200-600 mg. Both continuous ribociclib and 3 weeks on/1 week off dosing were evaluated. Arm C patients received LSZ102 at doses of 300-450 mg and alpelisib at 200-300 mg.

The recommended expansion doses were 450 mg daily of LSZ102 for arm A and 450 mg LSZ102 with 400 mg of daily ribociclib for arm B. For arm C, they were 300 mg LSZ102 with 250 mg of alpelisib daily.

Of note, two of three patients with a PR in arm C had received 300 mg LSZ102 and 300 mg alpelisib, Dr. Jhaveri said.

Arm A and arm B results were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The current report updates those findings and presents arm C data for the first time, Dr. Jhaveri said.

LSZ102 was relatively well-tolerated as a single agent and in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, according to Dr. Jhaveri. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal toxicities, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and decreased appetite, which occurred across all arms.

Neutropenia and aspartate aminotransferase abnormalities, including grade 3 cases, were reported in arm B and were most likely driven by the ribociclib, Dr. Jhaveri said. Grade 3 hypoglycemia and skin rash commonly occurred in arm C, most likely driven by the alpelisib.

Five dose-limiting toxicities occurred in four patients in arm A, three occurred in two patients in arm B, and seven occurred in seven patients in arm C.

Paired biopsies collected at the time of screening and at day 15 of cycle 1 showed consistent down-regulation of ER protein levels across arms.

“No substantial dose-dependent down-regulation of the ER was observed with increasing doses of LSZ,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis showed that the dominant mutations across the arms were ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53. These were not shown to correlate with response and were not enriched upon progression in patients with matched baseline and end-of-treatment samples, she noted.

An exploratory analysis, conducted in “a preliminary attempt to correlate clinical activity with specific mutations,” showed that, in arms B and C, respectively, ORR, CBR, and PFS weren’t correlated with the presence or absence of ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations, respectively, or the absence of detectable ctDNA from baseline samples, Dr. Jhaveri said.

“While numerically higher responses and better CBR were seen in patients with undetectable ctDNA at baseline, no statistically significant difference in any of these outcomes was observed in arms B and C,” she said.

In arm C, the numbers were small at the time of data cutoff, but incoming data suggest relatively enhanced activity of the LSZ102 plus alpelisib combination in PIKC3A-mutant patients, she noted.

“We know that inhibiting ER signaling is the mainstay of treatment for ER-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Jhaveri explained, adding that aromatase inhibitors, estrogen receptor modulators, and SERDs are important classes of antiestrogenic agents, but fulvestrant is the only approved SERD. These are effective, but many patients develop resistance, she said.

“Proposed mechanisms for endocrine resistance include activation of the cell-cycle and cell-survival signaling pathways, or of the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway,” Dr. Jhaveri said. “To that end, ribociclib, a CDK46 inhibitor plus fulvestrant improved survival compared to fulvestrant alone in patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.”

More recently, the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib plus fulvestrant also nearly doubled PFS vs. fulvestrant alone in PIKC3A-mutant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer, which led to the approval of the combination in the United States.

Another mechanism of endocrine resistance includes acquisition of activating mutations in the estrogen receptor gene itself that allow tumors to survive and proliferate without depending on estrogen.

EGFR mutations appear to predict resistance to aromatase inhibitor therapies, but not outcomes in patients treated with fulvestrant. However, fulvestrant, which is delivered by intramuscular injection, has its own limitations, Dr. Jhaveri said.

“LSZ102 is a novel SERD that could achieve higher exposure than fulvestrant, leading to enhanced efficacy,” she said, noting that it was shown in preclinical models to have activity and to be synergistic in combination with ribociclib and alpelisib, forming the basis for the current study.

Invited discussant, Saverio Cinieri, MD, of Ospedale Antonio Perrino, Brindisi, Italy, said the study “elegantly demonstrated that estrogen receptor protein is down-regulated by LSZ102; [that] the genomic landscape of heavily pretreated patients is dominated by mutations in ESR1, PIK3CA, and TP53; [that] common mutations do not correlate with response and are not enriched on progression; [and that] ctDNA analysis at baseline shows similar outcomes with LSZ plus ribociclib or alpelisib, regardless of mutational status.”

LSZ102 is one of four new-generation SERDs in early-phase studies, he said, concluding that “in the COVID-19 era, the use of oral therapies will be even more necessary to limit access to the hospital.”

Dr. Cinieri also said that overcoming the limitations “of a molecule like the intramuscularly administered fulvestrant goes in this direction,” and that “the clinical efficacy and the biomolecular profile of LSZ102 seems to be able to meet these real needs.”

This study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Jhaveri reported advisory and consultancy roles and/or research grants or other funding to her institution from Novartis, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, and numerous other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Cinieri reported relationships with Lily Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, including honoraria, grant and research support to his institution, advisory board participation, and scientific meeting support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jhaveri K et al. ESMO Breast Cancer, Abstract LBA1.

Planning for reduced use of opioids in pain management involves identifying appropriate patients and managing their expectations, according to according to Timothy E. Miller, MB, ChB, FRCA, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who is president of the American Society for Enhanced Recovery.

Multimodal analgesia plans can be a beneficial part of enhanced recovery and may reduce or eliminate the need for opioids in some patients, he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Miller shared a treatment algorithm for achieving optimal analgesia in patients after colorectal surgery that combines intravenous or oral analgesia with local anesthetics and additional nonopioid options. The algorithm involves choosing NSAIDs, acetaminophen, or gabapentin for IV/oral use. In addition, options for local anesthetic include with a choice of single-shot transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block.

Careful patient selection is key to an opioid-free or opioid reduced anesthetic strategy, Dr. Miller said. The appropriate patients have “no chronic opioids, no anxiety, and the desire to avoid opioid side effects,” he said.

Opioid-free or opioid-reduced strategies include realigning patient expectations to prepare for pain at a level of 2-4 on a scale of 10 as “expected and reasonable,” he said. Patients given no opioids or reduced opioids may report cramping after laparoscopic surgery, as well as shoulder pain that is referred from the CO₂ bubble under the diaphragm, he said. However, opioids don’t treat the shoulder pain well, and “walking or changing position usually relieves this pain,” and it usually resolves within 24 hours, Dr. Miller noted. “Just letting the patient know what is expected in terms of pain relief in their recovery is hugely important,” he said.

The optimal analgesia after surgery is a plan that combines optimized patient comfort with the fastest functional recovery and the fewest side effects, he emphasized.

Optimized patient comfort includes optimal pain ratings at rest and with movement, a decreasing impact of pain on emotion, function, and sleep disruption, and an improvement in the patient experience, he said. The fastest functional recovery is defined as a return to drinking liquids, eating solid foods, performing activities of daily living, and maintaining normal bladder, bowel, and cognitive function. Side effects to be considered in analgesia included nausea, vomiting, sedation, ileus, itching, dizziness, and delirium, he said.

In an unpublished study, Dr. Miller and colleagues eliminated opioids intraoperatively in a series of 56 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and found significantly less opioids needed in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). In addition, opioid-free patients had significantly shorter length of stay in the PACU, he said. “We are writing this up for publication and looking into doing larger studies,” Dr. Miller said.

Questions include whether the opioid-free technique translates more broadly, he said.

In addition, it is important to continue to collect data and study methods to treat pain and reduce opioid use perioperatively, Dr. Miller said. Some ongoing concerns include data surrounding the use of gabapentin and possible association with respiratory depression, he noted. Several meta-analyses have suggested that “gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin) when given as a single dose preoperatively are associated with a decrease in postoperative pain and opioid consumption at 24 hours,” said Dr. Miller. “When gabapentinoids are included in multimodal analgesic regimens, intraoperative opioids must be reduced, and increased vigilance for respiratory depression may be warranted, especially in elderly patients,” he said.

Overall, opioid-free anesthesia is both feasible and appropriate in certain patient populations, Dr. Miller concluded. “Implement your pathway and measure your outcomes with timely feedback so you can revise your protocol based on data,” he emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Miller disclosed relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, and serving as a board member for the Perioperative Quality Initiative and as a founding member of the Morpheus Consortium.

Planning for reduced use of opioids in pain management involves identifying appropriate patients and managing their expectations, according to according to Timothy E. Miller, MB, ChB, FRCA, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who is president of the American Society for Enhanced Recovery.

Multimodal analgesia plans can be a beneficial part of enhanced recovery and may reduce or eliminate the need for opioids in some patients, he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Miller shared a treatment algorithm for achieving optimal analgesia in patients after colorectal surgery that combines intravenous or oral analgesia with local anesthetics and additional nonopioid options. The algorithm involves choosing NSAIDs, acetaminophen, or gabapentin for IV/oral use. In addition, options for local anesthetic include with a choice of single-shot transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block.

Careful patient selection is key to an opioid-free or opioid reduced anesthetic strategy, Dr. Miller said. The appropriate patients have “no chronic opioids, no anxiety, and the desire to avoid opioid side effects,” he said.

Opioid-free or opioid-reduced strategies include realigning patient expectations to prepare for pain at a level of 2-4 on a scale of 10 as “expected and reasonable,” he said. Patients given no opioids or reduced opioids may report cramping after laparoscopic surgery, as well as shoulder pain that is referred from the CO₂ bubble under the diaphragm, he said. However, opioids don’t treat the shoulder pain well, and “walking or changing position usually relieves this pain,” and it usually resolves within 24 hours, Dr. Miller noted. “Just letting the patient know what is expected in terms of pain relief in their recovery is hugely important,” he said.

The optimal analgesia after surgery is a plan that combines optimized patient comfort with the fastest functional recovery and the fewest side effects, he emphasized.

Optimized patient comfort includes optimal pain ratings at rest and with movement, a decreasing impact of pain on emotion, function, and sleep disruption, and an improvement in the patient experience, he said. The fastest functional recovery is defined as a return to drinking liquids, eating solid foods, performing activities of daily living, and maintaining normal bladder, bowel, and cognitive function. Side effects to be considered in analgesia included nausea, vomiting, sedation, ileus, itching, dizziness, and delirium, he said.

In an unpublished study, Dr. Miller and colleagues eliminated opioids intraoperatively in a series of 56 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and found significantly less opioids needed in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). In addition, opioid-free patients had significantly shorter length of stay in the PACU, he said. “We are writing this up for publication and looking into doing larger studies,” Dr. Miller said.

Questions include whether the opioid-free technique translates more broadly, he said.

In addition, it is important to continue to collect data and study methods to treat pain and reduce opioid use perioperatively, Dr. Miller said. Some ongoing concerns include data surrounding the use of gabapentin and possible association with respiratory depression, he noted. Several meta-analyses have suggested that “gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin) when given as a single dose preoperatively are associated with a decrease in postoperative pain and opioid consumption at 24 hours,” said Dr. Miller. “When gabapentinoids are included in multimodal analgesic regimens, intraoperative opioids must be reduced, and increased vigilance for respiratory depression may be warranted, especially in elderly patients,” he said.

Overall, opioid-free anesthesia is both feasible and appropriate in certain patient populations, Dr. Miller concluded. “Implement your pathway and measure your outcomes with timely feedback so you can revise your protocol based on data,” he emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Miller disclosed relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, and serving as a board member for the Perioperative Quality Initiative and as a founding member of the Morpheus Consortium.

Planning for reduced use of opioids in pain management involves identifying appropriate patients and managing their expectations, according to according to Timothy E. Miller, MB, ChB, FRCA, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who is president of the American Society for Enhanced Recovery.

Multimodal analgesia plans can be a beneficial part of enhanced recovery and may reduce or eliminate the need for opioids in some patients, he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Miller shared a treatment algorithm for achieving optimal analgesia in patients after colorectal surgery that combines intravenous or oral analgesia with local anesthetics and additional nonopioid options. The algorithm involves choosing NSAIDs, acetaminophen, or gabapentin for IV/oral use. In addition, options for local anesthetic include with a choice of single-shot transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block.

Careful patient selection is key to an opioid-free or opioid reduced anesthetic strategy, Dr. Miller said. The appropriate patients have “no chronic opioids, no anxiety, and the desire to avoid opioid side effects,” he said.

Opioid-free or opioid-reduced strategies include realigning patient expectations to prepare for pain at a level of 2-4 on a scale of 10 as “expected and reasonable,” he said. Patients given no opioids or reduced opioids may report cramping after laparoscopic surgery, as well as shoulder pain that is referred from the CO₂ bubble under the diaphragm, he said. However, opioids don’t treat the shoulder pain well, and “walking or changing position usually relieves this pain,” and it usually resolves within 24 hours, Dr. Miller noted. “Just letting the patient know what is expected in terms of pain relief in their recovery is hugely important,” he said.

The optimal analgesia after surgery is a plan that combines optimized patient comfort with the fastest functional recovery and the fewest side effects, he emphasized.

Optimized patient comfort includes optimal pain ratings at rest and with movement, a decreasing impact of pain on emotion, function, and sleep disruption, and an improvement in the patient experience, he said. The fastest functional recovery is defined as a return to drinking liquids, eating solid foods, performing activities of daily living, and maintaining normal bladder, bowel, and cognitive function. Side effects to be considered in analgesia included nausea, vomiting, sedation, ileus, itching, dizziness, and delirium, he said.

In an unpublished study, Dr. Miller and colleagues eliminated opioids intraoperatively in a series of 56 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and found significantly less opioids needed in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). In addition, opioid-free patients had significantly shorter length of stay in the PACU, he said. “We are writing this up for publication and looking into doing larger studies,” Dr. Miller said.

Questions include whether the opioid-free technique translates more broadly, he said.

In addition, it is important to continue to collect data and study methods to treat pain and reduce opioid use perioperatively, Dr. Miller said. Some ongoing concerns include data surrounding the use of gabapentin and possible association with respiratory depression, he noted. Several meta-analyses have suggested that “gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin) when given as a single dose preoperatively are associated with a decrease in postoperative pain and opioid consumption at 24 hours,” said Dr. Miller. “When gabapentinoids are included in multimodal analgesic regimens, intraoperative opioids must be reduced, and increased vigilance for respiratory depression may be warranted, especially in elderly patients,” he said.

Overall, opioid-free anesthesia is both feasible and appropriate in certain patient populations, Dr. Miller concluded. “Implement your pathway and measure your outcomes with timely feedback so you can revise your protocol based on data,” he emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Miller disclosed relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, and serving as a board member for the Perioperative Quality Initiative and as a founding member of the Morpheus Consortium.

The race to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is unlike any other global research and development effort in modern medicine.

According to Paul A. Offit, MD, there are now 120 Investigational New Drug applications to the Food and Drug Administration for these vaccines, and researchers at more than 70 companies across the globe are interested in making a vaccine. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has awarded $2.5 billion to five different pharmaceutical companies to make a vaccine.

“The good news is that the new coronavirus is relatively stable,” Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “Although it is a single-stranded RNA virus, it does mutate to some extent, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to mutate away from the vaccine. So, this is not going to be like influenza virus, where you must give a vaccine every year. I think we can make a vaccine that will last for several years. And we know the protein we’re interested in. We’re interested in antibodies directed against the spike glycoprotein, which is abundantly present on the surface of the virus. We know that if we make an antibody response to that protein, we can therefore prevent infection.”

Some research groups are interested in developing a whole, killed virus like those used in the inactivated polio vaccine, and vaccines for hepatitis A virus and rabies, said Dr. Offit, who is a member of Accelerating COVID-19 Technical Innovations And Vaccines, a public-private partnership formed by the National Institutes of Health. Other groups are interested in making a live-attenuated vaccine like those for measles, mumps, and rubella. “Some are interested in using a vectored vaccine, where you take a virus that is relatively weak and doesn’t cause disease in people, like vesicular stomatitis virus, and then clone into that the gene that codes for this coronavirus spike protein, which is the way that we made the Ebola virus vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “Those approaches have all been used before, with success.”

Novel approaches are also being employed to make this vaccine, including using a replication-defective adenovirus. “That means that the virus can’t reproduce itself, but it can make proteins,” he explained. “There are some proteins that are made, but most aren’t. Therefore, the virus can’t reproduce itself. We’ll see whether or not that [approach] works, but it’s never been used before.”

Another approach is to inject messenger RNA that codes for the coronavirus spike protein, where that genetic material is translated into the spike protein. The other platform being evaluated is a DNA vaccine, in which “you give DNA which is coded for that spike protein, which is transcribed to messenger RNA and then is translated to other proteins.”

Typical vaccine development involves animal models to prove the concept, dose-ranging studies in humans, and progressively larger safety and immunogenicity studies in hundreds of thousands of people. Next come phase 3 studies, “where the proof is in the pudding,” he said. “These are large, prospective placebo-controlled trials to prove that the vaccine is safe. This is the only way whether you can prove or not a vaccine is effective.”

According to Dr. Offit, the phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials supported by BARDA will launch in July 2020 and will enroll 20,000 people in the vaccine treatment arm and 10,000 in the placebo arm. “Some companies may branch out on their own and do smaller studies than that,” he said. “We’ll see how this plays out. Keep your eyes open for that, because you really want to make sure you have a fairly large phase 3 trial. That’s the best way to show whether something works and whether it’s safe.”

The tried and true vaccines that emerge from the effort will not be FDA-licensed products. Rather, they will be approved products under the Emergency Use Authorization program. “Ever since the 1950s, every vaccine that has been used in the U.S. has been under the auspices of FDA licensure,” said Dr. Offit, who is also professor of pediatrics and the Maurice R. Hilleman professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “That’s not going to be true here. The FDA is involved every step of the way but here they have a somewhat lighter touch.”

A few candidate vaccines are being mass-produced at risk, “meaning they’re being produced not knowing whether these vaccines are safe and effective yet or not,” he said. “But when they’re shown in a phase 3 trial to be safe and effective, you will have already produced it, and then it’s much easier to roll it out to the general public the minute you’ve shown that it works. This is what we did for the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. We mass-produced that vaccine at risk.”

Dr. Offit emphasized the importance of managing expectations once a COVID-19 vaccine gets approved for use. “Regarding safety, these vaccines will be tested in tens of thousands of people, not tens of millions of people, so although you can disprove a relatively uncommon side effect preapproval, you’re not going to disprove a rare side effect preapproval. You’re only going to know that post approval. I think we need to make people aware of that and to let them know that through groups like the Vaccine Safety Datalink, we’re going to be monitoring these vaccines once they’re approved.”

Regarding efficacy, he continued, “we’re not going know about the rates of immunity initially; we’re only going to know about that after the vaccine [has been administered]. My guess is the protection is going to be short lived and incomplete. By short lived, I mean that protection would last for years but not decades. By incomplete, I mean that protection will be against moderate to severe disease, which is fine. You don’t need protection against all of the disease; it’s hard to do that with respiratory viruses. That means you can keep people out of the hospital, and you can keep them from dying. That’s the main goal.”

Dr. Offit closed his remarks by noting that much is at stake in this effort to develop a vaccine so quickly and that it “could go one of two ways. We could find that the vaccine is a lifesaver, and [that] we can finally end this awful pandemic. Or, if we cut corners and don’t prove that the vaccines are safe and effective as we should before they’re released, we could shake what is a fragile vaccine confidence in this country. Hopefully, it doesn’t play out that way.”

[email protected]

The race to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is unlike any other global research and development effort in modern medicine.

According to Paul A. Offit, MD, there are now 120 Investigational New Drug applications to the Food and Drug Administration for these vaccines, and researchers at more than 70 companies across the globe are interested in making a vaccine. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has awarded $2.5 billion to five different pharmaceutical companies to make a vaccine.

“The good news is that the new coronavirus is relatively stable,” Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “Although it is a single-stranded RNA virus, it does mutate to some extent, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to mutate away from the vaccine. So, this is not going to be like influenza virus, where you must give a vaccine every year. I think we can make a vaccine that will last for several years. And we know the protein we’re interested in. We’re interested in antibodies directed against the spike glycoprotein, which is abundantly present on the surface of the virus. We know that if we make an antibody response to that protein, we can therefore prevent infection.”

Some research groups are interested in developing a whole, killed virus like those used in the inactivated polio vaccine, and vaccines for hepatitis A virus and rabies, said Dr. Offit, who is a member of Accelerating COVID-19 Technical Innovations And Vaccines, a public-private partnership formed by the National Institutes of Health. Other groups are interested in making a live-attenuated vaccine like those for measles, mumps, and rubella. “Some are interested in using a vectored vaccine, where you take a virus that is relatively weak and doesn’t cause disease in people, like vesicular stomatitis virus, and then clone into that the gene that codes for this coronavirus spike protein, which is the way that we made the Ebola virus vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “Those approaches have all been used before, with success.”

Novel approaches are also being employed to make this vaccine, including using a replication-defective adenovirus. “That means that the virus can’t reproduce itself, but it can make proteins,” he explained. “There are some proteins that are made, but most aren’t. Therefore, the virus can’t reproduce itself. We’ll see whether or not that [approach] works, but it’s never been used before.”

Another approach is to inject messenger RNA that codes for the coronavirus spike protein, where that genetic material is translated into the spike protein. The other platform being evaluated is a DNA vaccine, in which “you give DNA which is coded for that spike protein, which is transcribed to messenger RNA and then is translated to other proteins.”

Typical vaccine development involves animal models to prove the concept, dose-ranging studies in humans, and progressively larger safety and immunogenicity studies in hundreds of thousands of people. Next come phase 3 studies, “where the proof is in the pudding,” he said. “These are large, prospective placebo-controlled trials to prove that the vaccine is safe. This is the only way whether you can prove or not a vaccine is effective.”

According to Dr. Offit, the phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials supported by BARDA will launch in July 2020 and will enroll 20,000 people in the vaccine treatment arm and 10,000 in the placebo arm. “Some companies may branch out on their own and do smaller studies than that,” he said. “We’ll see how this plays out. Keep your eyes open for that, because you really want to make sure you have a fairly large phase 3 trial. That’s the best way to show whether something works and whether it’s safe.”

The tried and true vaccines that emerge from the effort will not be FDA-licensed products. Rather, they will be approved products under the Emergency Use Authorization program. “Ever since the 1950s, every vaccine that has been used in the U.S. has been under the auspices of FDA licensure,” said Dr. Offit, who is also professor of pediatrics and the Maurice R. Hilleman professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “That’s not going to be true here. The FDA is involved every step of the way but here they have a somewhat lighter touch.”

A few candidate vaccines are being mass-produced at risk, “meaning they’re being produced not knowing whether these vaccines are safe and effective yet or not,” he said. “But when they’re shown in a phase 3 trial to be safe and effective, you will have already produced it, and then it’s much easier to roll it out to the general public the minute you’ve shown that it works. This is what we did for the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. We mass-produced that vaccine at risk.”

Dr. Offit emphasized the importance of managing expectations once a COVID-19 vaccine gets approved for use. “Regarding safety, these vaccines will be tested in tens of thousands of people, not tens of millions of people, so although you can disprove a relatively uncommon side effect preapproval, you’re not going to disprove a rare side effect preapproval. You’re only going to know that post approval. I think we need to make people aware of that and to let them know that through groups like the Vaccine Safety Datalink, we’re going to be monitoring these vaccines once they’re approved.”

Regarding efficacy, he continued, “we’re not going know about the rates of immunity initially; we’re only going to know about that after the vaccine [has been administered]. My guess is the protection is going to be short lived and incomplete. By short lived, I mean that protection would last for years but not decades. By incomplete, I mean that protection will be against moderate to severe disease, which is fine. You don’t need protection against all of the disease; it’s hard to do that with respiratory viruses. That means you can keep people out of the hospital, and you can keep them from dying. That’s the main goal.”

Dr. Offit closed his remarks by noting that much is at stake in this effort to develop a vaccine so quickly and that it “could go one of two ways. We could find that the vaccine is a lifesaver, and [that] we can finally end this awful pandemic. Or, if we cut corners and don’t prove that the vaccines are safe and effective as we should before they’re released, we could shake what is a fragile vaccine confidence in this country. Hopefully, it doesn’t play out that way.”

[email protected]

The race to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is unlike any other global research and development effort in modern medicine.

According to Paul A. Offit, MD, there are now 120 Investigational New Drug applications to the Food and Drug Administration for these vaccines, and researchers at more than 70 companies across the globe are interested in making a vaccine. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has awarded $2.5 billion to five different pharmaceutical companies to make a vaccine.

“The good news is that the new coronavirus is relatively stable,” Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “Although it is a single-stranded RNA virus, it does mutate to some extent, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to mutate away from the vaccine. So, this is not going to be like influenza virus, where you must give a vaccine every year. I think we can make a vaccine that will last for several years. And we know the protein we’re interested in. We’re interested in antibodies directed against the spike glycoprotein, which is abundantly present on the surface of the virus. We know that if we make an antibody response to that protein, we can therefore prevent infection.”

Some research groups are interested in developing a whole, killed virus like those used in the inactivated polio vaccine, and vaccines for hepatitis A virus and rabies, said Dr. Offit, who is a member of Accelerating COVID-19 Technical Innovations And Vaccines, a public-private partnership formed by the National Institutes of Health. Other groups are interested in making a live-attenuated vaccine like those for measles, mumps, and rubella. “Some are interested in using a vectored vaccine, where you take a virus that is relatively weak and doesn’t cause disease in people, like vesicular stomatitis virus, and then clone into that the gene that codes for this coronavirus spike protein, which is the way that we made the Ebola virus vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “Those approaches have all been used before, with success.”

Novel approaches are also being employed to make this vaccine, including using a replication-defective adenovirus. “That means that the virus can’t reproduce itself, but it can make proteins,” he explained. “There are some proteins that are made, but most aren’t. Therefore, the virus can’t reproduce itself. We’ll see whether or not that [approach] works, but it’s never been used before.”

Another approach is to inject messenger RNA that codes for the coronavirus spike protein, where that genetic material is translated into the spike protein. The other platform being evaluated is a DNA vaccine, in which “you give DNA which is coded for that spike protein, which is transcribed to messenger RNA and then is translated to other proteins.”

Typical vaccine development involves animal models to prove the concept, dose-ranging studies in humans, and progressively larger safety and immunogenicity studies in hundreds of thousands of people. Next come phase 3 studies, “where the proof is in the pudding,” he said. “These are large, prospective placebo-controlled trials to prove that the vaccine is safe. This is the only way whether you can prove or not a vaccine is effective.”

According to Dr. Offit, the phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials supported by BARDA will launch in July 2020 and will enroll 20,000 people in the vaccine treatment arm and 10,000 in the placebo arm. “Some companies may branch out on their own and do smaller studies than that,” he said. “We’ll see how this plays out. Keep your eyes open for that, because you really want to make sure you have a fairly large phase 3 trial. That’s the best way to show whether something works and whether it’s safe.”

The tried and true vaccines that emerge from the effort will not be FDA-licensed products. Rather, they will be approved products under the Emergency Use Authorization program. “Ever since the 1950s, every vaccine that has been used in the U.S. has been under the auspices of FDA licensure,” said Dr. Offit, who is also professor of pediatrics and the Maurice R. Hilleman professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “That’s not going to be true here. The FDA is involved every step of the way but here they have a somewhat lighter touch.”

A few candidate vaccines are being mass-produced at risk, “meaning they’re being produced not knowing whether these vaccines are safe and effective yet or not,” he said. “But when they’re shown in a phase 3 trial to be safe and effective, you will have already produced it, and then it’s much easier to roll it out to the general public the minute you’ve shown that it works. This is what we did for the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. We mass-produced that vaccine at risk.”

Dr. Offit emphasized the importance of managing expectations once a COVID-19 vaccine gets approved for use. “Regarding safety, these vaccines will be tested in tens of thousands of people, not tens of millions of people, so although you can disprove a relatively uncommon side effect preapproval, you’re not going to disprove a rare side effect preapproval. You’re only going to know that post approval. I think we need to make people aware of that and to let them know that through groups like the Vaccine Safety Datalink, we’re going to be monitoring these vaccines once they’re approved.”

Regarding efficacy, he continued, “we’re not going know about the rates of immunity initially; we’re only going to know about that after the vaccine [has been administered]. My guess is the protection is going to be short lived and incomplete. By short lived, I mean that protection would last for years but not decades. By incomplete, I mean that protection will be against moderate to severe disease, which is fine. You don’t need protection against all of the disease; it’s hard to do that with respiratory viruses. That means you can keep people out of the hospital, and you can keep them from dying. That’s the main goal.”

Dr. Offit closed his remarks by noting that much is at stake in this effort to develop a vaccine so quickly and that it “could go one of two ways. We could find that the vaccine is a lifesaver, and [that] we can finally end this awful pandemic. Or, if we cut corners and don’t prove that the vaccines are safe and effective as we should before they’re released, we could shake what is a fragile vaccine confidence in this country. Hopefully, it doesn’t play out that way.”

[email protected]

Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, half are under the million dollars and about half believe in living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

43% live below their means

Asked about habits regarding saving, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Half said they live at their means, and 7% said they live above their means.

Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., recommends in the report trying to save 20% of annual gross salary.

More than a third of physicians who responded (39%) said they put more than $2,000/month into tax-deferred retirement or college savings, but Dr. Greenwald acknowledged that this may become more challenging.

“Many have seen the employer match in their retirement plans reduced or eliminated through the end of 2020, with what comes in 2021 as yet undefined,” he said.

A smaller percentage (26%) answered that they put more than $2,000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account each month.

Home size by specialty

Mortgages on a primary residence were the top reasons for debt (63%), followed by car loans (37%), personal education loans (26%), and credit card balances (25%).

Half of specialists and 61% of primary care physicians live in homes with up to 3,000 square feet. Only 7% of PCPs and 12% of specialists live in homes with 5000 square feet or more.

At 22%, plastic surgeons and orthopedists were the most likely groups to have houses with the largest square footage, according to the survey.

About one in four physicians in five specialties (urology, cardiology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and critical care) reported that they had mortgages of more than $500,000.

Standard financial advice, the report authors note, is that a mortgage should take up no more than 28% of monthly gross income.

Another large source of debt came from student loans. Close to 80% of graduating medical students have educational debt. The average balance for graduating students in 2018 was $196,520, the report authors state.

Those in physical medicine/rehabilitation and family medicine were most likely to still be paying off student debt (34% said they were). Conversely, half as many nephrologists and rheumatologists (15%) and gastroenterologists (14%) reported that they were paying off educational debt.

Only 11% of physicians said they were currently free of any debt.

Most physicians in the survey (72%) reported that they had not experienced a significant financial loss in the past year.

For those who did experience such a loss, the top reason given was related to a bad investment or the stock market (9%).
 

Cost-cutting strategies

Revenue reduction will likely lead to spending less this year as the pandemic challenges continue.

Survey respondents offered their most effective cost-cutting strategies.

A hospitalist said, “Half of every bonus goes into the investment account, no matter how much.”

“We add an extra amount to the principal of our monthly mortgage payment,” an internist said.

A pediatrician offered, “I bring my lunch to work every day and don’t eat in restaurants often.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, half are under the million dollars and about half believe in living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

43% live below their means

Asked about habits regarding saving, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Half said they live at their means, and 7% said they live above their means.

Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., recommends in the report trying to save 20% of annual gross salary.

More than a third of physicians who responded (39%) said they put more than $2,000/month into tax-deferred retirement or college savings, but Dr. Greenwald acknowledged that this may become more challenging.

“Many have seen the employer match in their retirement plans reduced or eliminated through the end of 2020, with what comes in 2021 as yet undefined,” he said.

A smaller percentage (26%) answered that they put more than $2,000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account each month.

Home size by specialty

Mortgages on a primary residence were the top reasons for debt (63%), followed by car loans (37%), personal education loans (26%), and credit card balances (25%).

Half of specialists and 61% of primary care physicians live in homes with up to 3,000 square feet. Only 7% of PCPs and 12% of specialists live in homes with 5000 square feet or more.

At 22%, plastic surgeons and orthopedists were the most likely groups to have houses with the largest square footage, according to the survey.

About one in four physicians in five specialties (urology, cardiology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and critical care) reported that they had mortgages of more than $500,000.

Standard financial advice, the report authors note, is that a mortgage should take up no more than 28% of monthly gross income.

Another large source of debt came from student loans. Close to 80% of graduating medical students have educational debt. The average balance for graduating students in 2018 was $196,520, the report authors state.

Those in physical medicine/rehabilitation and family medicine were most likely to still be paying off student debt (34% said they were). Conversely, half as many nephrologists and rheumatologists (15%) and gastroenterologists (14%) reported that they were paying off educational debt.

Only 11% of physicians said they were currently free of any debt.

Most physicians in the survey (72%) reported that they had not experienced a significant financial loss in the past year.

For those who did experience such a loss, the top reason given was related to a bad investment or the stock market (9%).
 

Cost-cutting strategies

Revenue reduction will likely lead to spending less this year as the pandemic challenges continue.

Survey respondents offered their most effective cost-cutting strategies.

A hospitalist said, “Half of every bonus goes into the investment account, no matter how much.”

“We add an extra amount to the principal of our monthly mortgage payment,” an internist said.

A pediatrician offered, “I bring my lunch to work every day and don’t eat in restaurants often.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, half are under the million dollars and about half believe in living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

43% live below their means

Asked about habits regarding saving, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Half said they live at their means, and 7% said they live above their means.

Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., recommends in the report trying to save 20% of annual gross salary.

More than a third of physicians who responded (39%) said they put more than $2,000/month into tax-deferred retirement or college savings, but Dr. Greenwald acknowledged that this may become more challenging.

“Many have seen the employer match in their retirement plans reduced or eliminated through the end of 2020, with what comes in 2021 as yet undefined,” he said.

A smaller percentage (26%) answered that they put more than $2,000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account each month.

Home size by specialty

Mortgages on a primary residence were the top reasons for debt (63%), followed by car loans (37%), personal education loans (26%), and credit card balances (25%).

Half of specialists and 61% of primary care physicians live in homes with up to 3,000 square feet. Only 7% of PCPs and 12% of specialists live in homes with 5000 square feet or more.

At 22%, plastic surgeons and orthopedists were the most likely groups to have houses with the largest square footage, according to the survey.

About one in four physicians in five specialties (urology, cardiology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and critical care) reported that they had mortgages of more than $500,000.

Standard financial advice, the report authors note, is that a mortgage should take up no more than 28% of monthly gross income.

Another large source of debt came from student loans. Close to 80% of graduating medical students have educational debt. The average balance for graduating students in 2018 was $196,520, the report authors state.

Those in physical medicine/rehabilitation and family medicine were most likely to still be paying off student debt (34% said they were). Conversely, half as many nephrologists and rheumatologists (15%) and gastroenterologists (14%) reported that they were paying off educational debt.

Only 11% of physicians said they were currently free of any debt.

Most physicians in the survey (72%) reported that they had not experienced a significant financial loss in the past year.

For those who did experience such a loss, the top reason given was related to a bad investment or the stock market (9%).
 

Cost-cutting strategies

Revenue reduction will likely lead to spending less this year as the pandemic challenges continue.

Survey respondents offered their most effective cost-cutting strategies.

A hospitalist said, “Half of every bonus goes into the investment account, no matter how much.”

“We add an extra amount to the principal of our monthly mortgage payment,” an internist said.

A pediatrician offered, “I bring my lunch to work every day and don’t eat in restaurants often.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For surgical patients on chronic opioid therapy, the goals of pain management are to provide adequate analgesia, prevent withdrawal, and avoid relapse or worsening of opioid use, according to Stephanie B. Jones, MD, professor and chair of anesthesiology at Albany Medical College, New York.

“[With] any patient coming in for any sort of surgery, you should be considering multimodal pain management. That applies to the opioid use disorder patient as well,” Dr. Jones said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“The challenge of opioid-tolerant patients or opioid abuse patients is twofold – tolerance and hyperalgesia,” Dr. Jones said. Patient tolerance changes how patients perceive pain and respond to medication. Clinicians need to consider the “opioid debt,” defined as the daily amount of opioid medication required by opioid-dependent patients to maintain their usual prehospitalization opioid levels, she explained. Also consider hyperalgesia, a change in pain perception “resulting in an increase in pain sensitivity to painful stimuli, thereby decreasing the analgesic effects of opioids,” Dr. Jones added.

A multimodal approach to pain management in patients on chronic opioids can include some opioids as appropriate, Dr. Jones said. Modulation of pain may draw on epidurals and nerve blocks, as well as managing CNS perception of pain through opioids or acetaminophen, and also using systemic options such as alpha-2 agonists and tramadol, she said.

Studies have shown that opioid abuse or dependence were associated with increased readmission rates, length of stay, and health care costs in surgery patients, said Dr. Jones. However, switching opioids and managing equivalents is complex, and “equianalgesic conversions serve only as a general guide to estimate opioid dose equivalents,” according to UpToDate’s, “Management of acute pain in the patient chronically using opioids,” she said.

Dr. Jones also addressed the issue of using hospitalization as an opportunity to help patients with untreated opioid use disorder. Medication-assisted options include methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone.

“One problem with methadone is that there are a lot of medications interactions,” she said. Buprenorphine has the advantage of being long-lasting, and is formulated with naloxone which deters injection. “Because it is a partial agonist, there is a lower risk of overdose and sedation,” and it has fewer medication interactions. However, some doctors are reluctant to prescribe it and there is some risk of medication diversion, she said.

Naltrexone is newer to the role of treating opioid use disorder, Dr. Jones said. “It can cause acute withdrawal because it is a full opioid antagonist,” she noted. However, naltrexone itself causes no withdrawal if stopped, and no respiratory depression or sedation, said Dr. Jones.

“Utilize addiction services in your hospital if you suspect a patient may be at risk for opioid use disorder,” and engage these services early, she emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Jones had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For surgical patients on chronic opioid therapy, the goals of pain management are to provide adequate analgesia, prevent withdrawal, and avoid relapse or worsening of opioid use, according to Stephanie B. Jones, MD, professor and chair of anesthesiology at Albany Medical College, New York.

“[With] any patient coming in for any sort of surgery, you should be considering multimodal pain management. That applies to the opioid use disorder patient as well,” Dr. Jones said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“The challenge of opioid-tolerant patients or opioid abuse patients is twofold – tolerance and hyperalgesia,” Dr. Jones said. Patient tolerance changes how patients perceive pain and respond to medication. Clinicians need to consider the “opioid debt,” defined as the daily amount of opioid medication required by opioid-dependent patients to maintain their usual prehospitalization opioid levels, she explained. Also consider hyperalgesia, a change in pain perception “resulting in an increase in pain sensitivity to painful stimuli, thereby decreasing the analgesic effects of opioids,” Dr. Jones added.

A multimodal approach to pain management in patients on chronic opioids can include some opioids as appropriate, Dr. Jones said. Modulation of pain may draw on epidurals and nerve blocks, as well as managing CNS perception of pain through opioids or acetaminophen, and also using systemic options such as alpha-2 agonists and tramadol, she said.

Studies have shown that opioid abuse or dependence were associated with increased readmission rates, length of stay, and health care costs in surgery patients, said Dr. Jones. However, switching opioids and managing equivalents is complex, and “equianalgesic conversions serve only as a general guide to estimate opioid dose equivalents,” according to UpToDate’s, “Management of acute pain in the patient chronically using opioids,” she said.

Dr. Jones also addressed the issue of using hospitalization as an opportunity to help patients with untreated opioid use disorder. Medication-assisted options include methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone.

“One problem with methadone is that there are a lot of medications interactions,” she said. Buprenorphine has the advantage of being long-lasting, and is formulated with naloxone which deters injection. “Because it is a partial agonist, there is a lower risk of overdose and sedation,” and it has fewer medication interactions. However, some doctors are reluctant to prescribe it and there is some risk of medication diversion, she said.

Naltrexone is newer to the role of treating opioid use disorder, Dr. Jones said. “It can cause acute withdrawal because it is a full opioid antagonist,” she noted. However, naltrexone itself causes no withdrawal if stopped, and no respiratory depression or sedation, said Dr. Jones.

“Utilize addiction services in your hospital if you suspect a patient may be at risk for opioid use disorder,” and engage these services early, she emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Jones had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For surgical patients on chronic opioid therapy, the goals of pain management are to provide adequate analgesia, prevent withdrawal, and avoid relapse or worsening of opioid use, according to Stephanie B. Jones, MD, professor and chair of anesthesiology at Albany Medical College, New York.

“[With] any patient coming in for any sort of surgery, you should be considering multimodal pain management. That applies to the opioid use disorder patient as well,” Dr. Jones said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“The challenge of opioid-tolerant patients or opioid abuse patients is twofold – tolerance and hyperalgesia,” Dr. Jones said. Patient tolerance changes how patients perceive pain and respond to medication. Clinicians need to consider the “opioid debt,” defined as the daily amount of opioid medication required by opioid-dependent patients to maintain their usual prehospitalization opioid levels, she explained. Also consider hyperalgesia, a change in pain perception “resulting in an increase in pain sensitivity to painful stimuli, thereby decreasing the analgesic effects of opioids,” Dr. Jones added.

A multimodal approach to pain management in patients on chronic opioids can include some opioids as appropriate, Dr. Jones said. Modulation of pain may draw on epidurals and nerve blocks, as well as managing CNS perception of pain through opioids or acetaminophen, and also using systemic options such as alpha-2 agonists and tramadol, she said.

Studies have shown that opioid abuse or dependence were associated with increased readmission rates, length of stay, and health care costs in surgery patients, said Dr. Jones. However, switching opioids and managing equivalents is complex, and “equianalgesic conversions serve only as a general guide to estimate opioid dose equivalents,” according to UpToDate’s, “Management of acute pain in the patient chronically using opioids,” she said.

Dr. Jones also addressed the issue of using hospitalization as an opportunity to help patients with untreated opioid use disorder. Medication-assisted options include methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone.

“One problem with methadone is that there are a lot of medications interactions,” she said. Buprenorphine has the advantage of being long-lasting, and is formulated with naloxone which deters injection. “Because it is a partial agonist, there is a lower risk of overdose and sedation,” and it has fewer medication interactions. However, some doctors are reluctant to prescribe it and there is some risk of medication diversion, she said.

Naltrexone is newer to the role of treating opioid use disorder, Dr. Jones said. “It can cause acute withdrawal because it is a full opioid antagonist,” she noted. However, naltrexone itself causes no withdrawal if stopped, and no respiratory depression or sedation, said Dr. Jones.

“Utilize addiction services in your hospital if you suspect a patient may be at risk for opioid use disorder,” and engage these services early, she emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Jones had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancer.

This is the first time that an immunotherapy agent has been approved in this setting and as monotherapy, without added chemotherapy.

“Metastatic colorectal cancer is a serious and life-threatening disease with a poor prognosis,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a statement. “Available current therapy with chemotherapy combinations and other biologics are associated with substantial toxicity.”

“Having a nonchemotherapy option available for selected patients is a noteworthy paradigm shift in treatment,” he commented.

Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2, and has demonstrated robust antitumor activity and a favorable safety profile in multiple tumor types.

The current approval is based on data from the multicenter, randomized KEYNOTE-177 trial, which found that pembrolizumab more than doubled median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy, the current standard of care. The study results were presented earlier this year at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program, as reported by Medscape Medical News. In a commentary about that study, David Kerr, MD, professor of cancer medicine at the Oxford Cancer Centre, UK, said: “We know that MSI-H/dMMR tumors occur in only 4% or 5% of all patients in the advanced setting. Nevertheless, for that small but important subgroup, we now have a well-tolerated new treatment.”

New standard of care

The KEYNOTE-177 trial involved 307 patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer. They were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles (n = 153) or to the investigators’ choice of chemotherapy (n = 154).

Chemotherapy regimens were modified FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) used alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab, or FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan) alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab.

Crossover from the chemotherapy arm to immunotherapy was permitted for up to 35 cycles if the patient experienced disease progression confirmed by central review.

The primary endpoints were PFS and overall survival, and the trial would be considered successful if either primary endpoint was met.

Treatment with pembrolizumab monotherapy significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 40% (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 - 0.80; P = .0004), with a median PFS of 16.5 months versus 8.2 months for chemotherapy. At the time of the PFS analysis, overall survival data were not yet mature (66% of the required number of events for final analysis).

The overall response rate with pembrolizumab was 44%, with a complete response achieved in 11% of patients and a partial response rate of 33%. For the chemotherapy arm, the overall response rate was 33%, with a complete response rate of 4% and a partial response rate of 29%.

The median duration of response was not reached in the pembrolizumab arm versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy.

“In the past, no medical treatment has shown such difference in terms of improvement of PFS in metastatic colorectal cancer,” said study investigator Thierry André, MD, of Hôpital Saint Antoine in Paris, France, at a press briefing held prior to the presentation at the ASCO meeting.

At that time, Michael J. Overman, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told Medscape Medical News that “I think this is setting a new standard of care.”

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22% of patients on pembrolizumab and 66% on chemotherapy.

Immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions were more common with pembrolizumab than chemotherapy (31% and 13%, respectively). Adverse events that were common with chemotherapy included gastrointestinal events, fatigue, neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancer.

This is the first time that an immunotherapy agent has been approved in this setting and as monotherapy, without added chemotherapy.

“Metastatic colorectal cancer is a serious and life-threatening disease with a poor prognosis,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a statement. “Available current therapy with chemotherapy combinations and other biologics are associated with substantial toxicity.”

“Having a nonchemotherapy option available for selected patients is a noteworthy paradigm shift in treatment,” he commented.

Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2, and has demonstrated robust antitumor activity and a favorable safety profile in multiple tumor types.

The current approval is based on data from the multicenter, randomized KEYNOTE-177 trial, which found that pembrolizumab more than doubled median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy, the current standard of care. The study results were presented earlier this year at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program, as reported by Medscape Medical News. In a commentary about that study, David Kerr, MD, professor of cancer medicine at the Oxford Cancer Centre, UK, said: “We know that MSI-H/dMMR tumors occur in only 4% or 5% of all patients in the advanced setting. Nevertheless, for that small but important subgroup, we now have a well-tolerated new treatment.”

New standard of care

The KEYNOTE-177 trial involved 307 patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer. They were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles (n = 153) or to the investigators’ choice of chemotherapy (n = 154).

Chemotherapy regimens were modified FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) used alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab, or FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan) alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab.

Crossover from the chemotherapy arm to immunotherapy was permitted for up to 35 cycles if the patient experienced disease progression confirmed by central review.

The primary endpoints were PFS and overall survival, and the trial would be considered successful if either primary endpoint was met.

Treatment with pembrolizumab monotherapy significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 40% (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 - 0.80; P = .0004), with a median PFS of 16.5 months versus 8.2 months for chemotherapy. At the time of the PFS analysis, overall survival data were not yet mature (66% of the required number of events for final analysis).

The overall response rate with pembrolizumab was 44%, with a complete response achieved in 11% of patients and a partial response rate of 33%. For the chemotherapy arm, the overall response rate was 33%, with a complete response rate of 4% and a partial response rate of 29%.

The median duration of response was not reached in the pembrolizumab arm versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy.

“In the past, no medical treatment has shown such difference in terms of improvement of PFS in metastatic colorectal cancer,” said study investigator Thierry André, MD, of Hôpital Saint Antoine in Paris, France, at a press briefing held prior to the presentation at the ASCO meeting.

At that time, Michael J. Overman, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told Medscape Medical News that “I think this is setting a new standard of care.”

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22% of patients on pembrolizumab and 66% on chemotherapy.

Immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions were more common with pembrolizumab than chemotherapy (31% and 13%, respectively). Adverse events that were common with chemotherapy included gastrointestinal events, fatigue, neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancer.

This is the first time that an immunotherapy agent has been approved in this setting and as monotherapy, without added chemotherapy.

“Metastatic colorectal cancer is a serious and life-threatening disease with a poor prognosis,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a statement. “Available current therapy with chemotherapy combinations and other biologics are associated with substantial toxicity.”

“Having a nonchemotherapy option available for selected patients is a noteworthy paradigm shift in treatment,” he commented.

Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2, and has demonstrated robust antitumor activity and a favorable safety profile in multiple tumor types.

The current approval is based on data from the multicenter, randomized KEYNOTE-177 trial, which found that pembrolizumab more than doubled median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy, the current standard of care. The study results were presented earlier this year at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) virtual scientific program, as reported by Medscape Medical News. In a commentary about that study, David Kerr, MD, professor of cancer medicine at the Oxford Cancer Centre, UK, said: “We know that MSI-H/dMMR tumors occur in only 4% or 5% of all patients in the advanced setting. Nevertheless, for that small but important subgroup, we now have a well-tolerated new treatment.”

New standard of care

The KEYNOTE-177 trial involved 307 patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer. They were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles (n = 153) or to the investigators’ choice of chemotherapy (n = 154).

Chemotherapy regimens were modified FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) used alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab, or FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan) alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab.

Crossover from the chemotherapy arm to immunotherapy was permitted for up to 35 cycles if the patient experienced disease progression confirmed by central review.

The primary endpoints were PFS and overall survival, and the trial would be considered successful if either primary endpoint was met.

Treatment with pembrolizumab monotherapy significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 40% (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 - 0.80; P = .0004), with a median PFS of 16.5 months versus 8.2 months for chemotherapy. At the time of the PFS analysis, overall survival data were not yet mature (66% of the required number of events for final analysis).

The overall response rate with pembrolizumab was 44%, with a complete response achieved in 11% of patients and a partial response rate of 33%. For the chemotherapy arm, the overall response rate was 33%, with a complete response rate of 4% and a partial response rate of 29%.

The median duration of response was not reached in the pembrolizumab arm versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy.

“In the past, no medical treatment has shown such difference in terms of improvement of PFS in metastatic colorectal cancer,” said study investigator Thierry André, MD, of Hôpital Saint Antoine in Paris, France, at a press briefing held prior to the presentation at the ASCO meeting.

At that time, Michael J. Overman, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told Medscape Medical News that “I think this is setting a new standard of care.”

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22% of patients on pembrolizumab and 66% on chemotherapy.

Immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions were more common with pembrolizumab than chemotherapy (31% and 13%, respectively). Adverse events that were common with chemotherapy included gastrointestinal events, fatigue, neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel program that aims to automate the Sharp-van der Heijde scoring of radiographs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis has shown good reliability in identifying regions of interest and matching human reader scoring for joint-space narrowing, according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year because of COVID-19.

Courtesy Dr. Thomas Deimel

First author and presenter Thomas Deimel, MD, and colleagues at the Medical University of Vienna said their program, called autoscoRA, may be a solution to the problem of readers having to make subjective calls on the severity of damage seen on radiographs.

Although the work continues to be validated, Dr. Deimel, a resident at the university, is confident in the system as is. “I think for joint space narrowing, we’re there at the point where this could be used and could be as good as a human reader in terms of reliability,” he said in an interview. To find out, the group plans to compare the variability between autoscoRA and a gold-standard human reader against the variability seen between human readers. If the two measures of variability are similar, it would provide a strong endorsement.

The effort is far from the first to develop an automatic scoring system for RA images, but no fully automated system has emerged as reliable, according to Dr. Deimel. He thinks one main issue for others has been lack of access to a sufficient data set to train systems. It can be difficult to find enough training images because many types of joint damage are comparatively uncommon. The problem is made even worse because images can be hard to interpret: The shapes that the system must decipher can be misleading, especially in positions of tendon insertion or ligament attachment that can resemble damage. Differing angles of view between various training images can also complicate matters.

The autoscoRA program is based on modifications of a form of convolutional neural network called the VGG16 architecture. The team used 2,207 images from 270 patients to train autoscoRA, 1,150 images from 133 patients for validation, and 1,834 images from 237 patients to test it.

The group had access to a high-quality data set of almost 6,000 hand radiographs from their institution, the result of foresight of principal investigator Daniel Aletaha, MD, and his predecessor Josef Smolen, MD. They “thought ahead and started collecting data and had all of it scored,” Dr. Deimel said. The work wasn’t all completed ahead of time, though. Dr. Deimel had to pull images from the hospital’s system sort through them manually.

The group also benefited from close proximity to computer scientists, including coauthor Georg Langs from the Medical University of Vienna’s computational imaging research lab. “We were lucky that we have a computer science department that is very much involved in medical imaging,” Dr. Deimel said.

The trained system successfully identified regions of interest in 96% of joints. It calculated the same score as the human reader in 80.5% of metacarpophalangeal joints and 72.3% of proximal interphalangeal joints. It deviated by more than 1 point from the gold-standard score in just 1.8% of metacarpophalangeal joints and 1.7% of proximal interphalangeal joints.

The researchers aim next to extend the program to bone erosions and also to images of the wrists and feet. They also hope to use scores from the program in clinical trials to measure a treatment’s effect, in registries of routine patient visits where thousands of such images along with clinical data could form the basis of informative observational studies, and in clinical practice, though likely with human oversight.

The study received no outside financial support. Dr. Deimel had no relevant financial disclosures. Mr. Langs reported being cofounder and shareholder of contextflow and receiving grants from Novartis, Siemens Healthineers, and NVIDIA. Dr. Aletaha reported financial relationships with many companies marketing drugs for rheumatoid arthritis.

SOURCE: Deimel T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(suppl 1):39-40.

A novel program that aims to automate the Sharp-van der Heijde scoring of radiographs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis has shown good reliability in identifying regions of interest and matching human reader scoring for joint-space narrowing, according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year because of COVID-19.

Courtesy Dr. Thomas Deimel

First author and presenter Thomas Deimel, MD, and colleagues at the Medical University of Vienna said their program, called autoscoRA, may be a solution to the problem of readers having to make subjective calls on the severity of damage seen on radiographs.

Although the work continues to be validated, Dr. Deimel, a resident at the university, is confident in the system as is. “I think for joint space narrowing, we’re there at the point where this could be used and could be as good as a human reader in terms of reliability,” he said in an interview. To find out, the group plans to compare the variability between autoscoRA and a gold-standard human reader against the variability seen between human readers. If the two measures of variability are similar, it would provide a strong endorsement.

The effort is far from the first to develop an automatic scoring system for RA images, but no fully automated system has emerged as reliable, according to Dr. Deimel. He thinks one main issue for others has been lack of access to a sufficient data set to train systems. It can be difficult to find enough training images because many types of joint damage are comparatively uncommon. The problem is made even worse because images can be hard to interpret: The shapes that the system must decipher can be misleading, especially in positions of tendon insertion or ligament attachment that can resemble damage. Differing angles of view between various training images can also complicate matters.

The autoscoRA program is based on modifications of a form of convolutional neural network called the VGG16 architecture. The team used 2,207 images from 270 patients to train autoscoRA, 1,150 images from 133 patients for validation, and 1,834 images from 237 patients to test it.

The group had access to a high-quality data set of almost 6,000 hand radiographs from their institution, the result of foresight of principal investigator Daniel Aletaha, MD, and his predecessor Josef Smolen, MD. They “thought ahead and started collecting data and had all of it scored,” Dr. Deimel said. The work wasn’t all completed ahead of time, though. Dr. Deimel had to pull images from the hospital’s system sort through them manually.

The group also benefited from close proximity to computer scientists, including coauthor Georg Langs from the Medical University of Vienna’s computational imaging research lab. “We were lucky that we have a computer science department that is very much involved in medical imaging,” Dr. Deimel said.

The trained system successfully identified regions of interest in 96% of joints. It calculated the same score as the human reader in 80.5% of metacarpophalangeal joints and 72.3% of proximal interphalangeal joints. It deviated by more than 1 point from the gold-standard score in just 1.8% of metacarpophalangeal joints and 1.7% of proximal interphalangeal joints.

The researchers aim next to extend the program to bone erosions and also to images of the wrists and feet. They also hope to use scores from the program in clinical trials to measure a treatment’s effect, in registries of routine patient visits where thousands of such images along with clinical data could form the basis of informative observational studies, and in clinical practice, though likely with human oversight.

The study received no outside financial support. Dr. Deimel had no relevant financial disclosures. Mr. Langs reported being cofounder and shareholder of contextflow and receiving grants from Novartis, Siemens Healthineers, and NVIDIA. Dr. Aletaha reported financial relationships with many companies marketing drugs for rheumatoid arthritis.

SOURCE: Deimel T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(suppl 1):39-40.

A novel program that aims to automate the Sharp-van der Heijde scoring of radiographs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis has shown good reliability in identifying regions of interest and matching human reader scoring for joint-space narrowing, according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year because of COVID-19.

Courtesy Dr. Thomas Deimel

First author and presenter Thomas Deimel, MD, and colleagues at the Medical University of Vienna said their program, called autoscoRA, may be a solution to the problem of readers having to make subjective calls on the severity of damage seen on radiographs.

Although the work continues to be validated, Dr. Deimel, a resident at the university, is confident in the system as is. “I think for joint space narrowing, we’re there at the point where this could be used and could be as good as a human reader in terms of reliability,” he said in an interview. To find out, the group plans to compare the variability between autoscoRA and a gold-standard human reader against the variability seen between human readers. If the two measures of variability are similar, it would provide a strong endorsement.

The effort is far from the first to develop an automatic scoring system for RA images, but no fully automated system has emerged as reliable, according to Dr. Deimel. He thinks one main issue for others has been lack of access to a sufficient data set to train systems. It can be difficult to find enough training images because many types of joint damage are comparatively uncommon. The problem is made even worse because images can be hard to interpret: The shapes that the system must decipher can be misleading, especially in positions of tendon insertion or ligament attachment that can resemble damage. Differing angles of view between various training images can also complicate matters.

The autoscoRA program is based on modifications of a form of convolutional neural network called the VGG16 architecture. The team used 2,207 images from 270 patients to train autoscoRA, 1,150 images from 133 patients for validation, and 1,834 images from 237 patients to test it.

The group had access to a high-quality data set of almost 6,000 hand radiographs from their institution, the result of foresight of principal investigator Daniel Aletaha, MD, and his predecessor Josef Smolen, MD. They “thought ahead and started collecting data and had all of it scored,” Dr. Deimel said. The work wasn’t all completed ahead of time, though. Dr. Deimel had to pull images from the hospital’s system sort through them manually.

The group also benefited from close proximity to computer scientists, including coauthor Georg Langs from the Medical University of Vienna’s computational imaging research lab. “We were lucky that we have a computer science department that is very much involved in medical imaging,” Dr. Deimel said.

The trained system successfully identified regions of interest in 96% of joints. It calculated the same score as the human reader in 80.5% of metacarpophalangeal joints and 72.3% of proximal interphalangeal joints. It deviated by more than 1 point from the gold-standard score in just 1.8% of metacarpophalangeal joints and 1.7% of proximal interphalangeal joints.

The researchers aim next to extend the program to bone erosions and also to images of the wrists and feet. They also hope to use scores from the program in clinical trials to measure a treatment’s effect, in registries of routine patient visits where thousands of such images along with clinical data could form the basis of informative observational studies, and in clinical practice, though likely with human oversight.

The study received no outside financial support. Dr. Deimel had no relevant financial disclosures. Mr. Langs reported being cofounder and shareholder of contextflow and receiving grants from Novartis, Siemens Healthineers, and NVIDIA. Dr. Aletaha reported financial relationships with many companies marketing drugs for rheumatoid arthritis.

SOURCE: Deimel T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(suppl 1):39-40.