Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.

Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.

At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).

With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).

“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.

One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.

“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.

Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.

Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.

At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).

With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).

“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.

One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.

“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.

Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.

Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.

At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).

With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).

“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.

One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.

“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.

PARIS – The primary endpoint of PARAGON-HF was neutral in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but that didn’t stop some experts from seeing a practice-changing message in its findings.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The results of PARAGON-HF, a major trial of sacubitril/valsartan – a compound already approved for treating heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction – in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), showed a statistically neutral result for the study’s primary endpoint, but with an excruciatingly close near miss for statistical significance and clear benefit in a subgroup of HFpEF patients with a modestly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. These findings seemed to convince some experts to soon try using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) to treat selected patients with HFpEF, driven in large part by the lack of any other agent clearly proven to benefit the large number of patients with this form of heart failure.

HFpEF is “a huge unmet need,” and data from the PARAGON-HF trial “suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may be beneficial in some patients with HFpEF, particularly those with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is not frankly reduced, but less than normal,” specifically patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%, Scott D. Solomon, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology as he reported the primary PARAGON-HF results.

“I’m not speaking for regulators or for guidelines, but I suspect that in this group of patients [with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%] there is at least some rationale to use this treatment,” said Dr. Solomon, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

His suggestion, which cut against the standard rules that govern the interpretation of trial results, met a substantial level of receptivity at the congress.

Trial results “are not black and white, where a P value of .049 means the trial was totally positive, and a P of .051 means it’s totally neutral. That’s misleading, and it’s why the field is moving to different types of [statistical] analysis that give us more leeway in interpreting data,” commented Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris.

“Everything in this trial points to substantial potential benefit. I’m not impressed by the P value that just missed significance. I think this is a very important advance,” said Dr. Steg, who had no involvement in the study, during a press conference at the congress.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree. I look at the totality of evidence, and to me the PARAGON-HF results were positive in patients with an ejection fraction of 50%, which is not a normal level. The way I interpret the results is, the treatment works in patients with an ejection fraction that is ‘lowish,’ but not at the conventional level of reduced ejection fraction,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who also had no involvement with PARAGON-HF.

Stuart J. Connolly, MD, designated discussant for the report at the congress and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., struck similar notes during his discussion of the report, and called the subgroup analysis by baseline ejection fraction “compelling,” and supported by several secondary findings of the study, the biological plausibility of a link between ejection fraction and treatment response, and by suggestions of a similar effect caused by related drugs in prior studies.

The argument in favor of sacubitril/valsartan’s efficacy in a subgroup of PARAGON-HF patients was also taken up by Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas. “I think it’s legitimate to say that there are HFpEF subgroups that might benefit” from sacubitril/valsartan, such as women. “I think it’s appropriate in this disease to look at subgroups because we have to find something that works for these patients,” she added in a video interview.

But Dr. Jessup also urged caution in interpreting the link between modestly reduced ejection fraction and response to sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF patients because ejection fraction measurements by echocardiography, as done in the trial, are notoriously unreliable. “We need more precise markers of who responds to this drug and who does not,” she said.

PARAGON-HF randomized 4,796 patients at 848 sites in 43 countries who were aged at least 50 years, had signs and symptoms of heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, had evidence on echocardiography of either left atrial enlargement or left ventricular hypertrophy, and had an elevated blood level of natriuretic peptides.

The study’s primary endpoint was the composite rate of total (both first and recurrent) hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. That outcome occurred at a rate of 12.8 events/100 patient-years in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and a rate of 14.6 events/100 patient-years in control patients treated with the angiotensin receptor blocking drug valsartan alone. Those results yielded a relative risk reduction by sacubitril/valsartan of 13% with a P value of .059, just missing statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Solomon’s report the results appeared in an article online and then subsequently in print (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20). The primary endpoint was driven primarily by a 15% relative risk reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure; the two treatment arms showed nearly identical rates of cardiovascular disease death.

Notable secondary findings that reached statistical significance included a 16% relative decrease in total heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular deaths, and urgent heart failure visits with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, as well as a 16% reduction in all investigator-reported events. Other significant benefits linked with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were a 45% relative improvement in functional class, a 30% relative improvement in patients achieving a meaningful increase in a quality of life measure, and a halving of the incidence of worsening renal function with sacubitril/valsartan.

The safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan in the study matched previous reports on the drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, an approved indication since 2015.

The key subgroup analysis detailed by Dr. Solomon was the incidence of the primary endpoint by baseline ejection fraction. Among the 2,495 patients (52% of the study population) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 57% or less when they entered the study, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan cut the primary endpoint incidence by 22%, compared with valsartan alone, a statistically significant difference. Among patients with a baseline ejection fraction of 58% or greater, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan had no effect on the primary endpoint, compared with control patients. Dr. Solomon also reported a statistically significant 22% relative improvement in the primary endpoint among the 2,479 women in the study (52% of the total study cohort) while the drug had no discernible impact among men, but he did not highlight any immediate implication of this finding.

Despite how suggestive the finding related to ejection fraction may be for practice, a major impediment to prescribing sacubitril/valsartan to HFpEF patients may come from pharmacy managers, suggested Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure specialist and professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis.

“The study did not hit its primary endpoint, so pharmacy managers will face no moral issue by withholding the drug” from HFpEF patients, Dr. Mann said in an interview. Because sacubitril/valsartan is substantially costlier than other renin-angiotensin system inhibitor drugs, which are mostly generic, patients may often find it difficult to pay for sacubitril/valsartan themselves if it receives no insurance coverage.

“It’s heartbreaking that the endpoint missed for a disease with no proven treatment. The study may have narrowly missed, but it still missed, and a lot of us had hoped it would be positive. It’s a slippery slope” when investigators try to qualify a trial result that failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a statistically significant effect. “The primary endpoint is the primary endpoint, and we should not overinterpret the data,” Dr. Mann warned.

PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Novartis and from several other companies. Dr. Steg has received personal fees from Novartis and has received personal fees and research funding from several other companies. Dr. Bhatt has been a consultant to and received research funding from several companies but has had no recent relationship with Novartis. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Jessup had no disclosures. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, LivaNova, and Tenaya Therapeutics.

[email protected]

PARIS – The primary endpoint of PARAGON-HF was neutral in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but that didn’t stop some experts from seeing a practice-changing message in its findings.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The results of PARAGON-HF, a major trial of sacubitril/valsartan – a compound already approved for treating heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction – in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), showed a statistically neutral result for the study’s primary endpoint, but with an excruciatingly close near miss for statistical significance and clear benefit in a subgroup of HFpEF patients with a modestly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. These findings seemed to convince some experts to soon try using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) to treat selected patients with HFpEF, driven in large part by the lack of any other agent clearly proven to benefit the large number of patients with this form of heart failure.

HFpEF is “a huge unmet need,” and data from the PARAGON-HF trial “suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may be beneficial in some patients with HFpEF, particularly those with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is not frankly reduced, but less than normal,” specifically patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%, Scott D. Solomon, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology as he reported the primary PARAGON-HF results.

“I’m not speaking for regulators or for guidelines, but I suspect that in this group of patients [with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%] there is at least some rationale to use this treatment,” said Dr. Solomon, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

His suggestion, which cut against the standard rules that govern the interpretation of trial results, met a substantial level of receptivity at the congress.

Trial results “are not black and white, where a P value of .049 means the trial was totally positive, and a P of .051 means it’s totally neutral. That’s misleading, and it’s why the field is moving to different types of [statistical] analysis that give us more leeway in interpreting data,” commented Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris.

“Everything in this trial points to substantial potential benefit. I’m not impressed by the P value that just missed significance. I think this is a very important advance,” said Dr. Steg, who had no involvement in the study, during a press conference at the congress.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree. I look at the totality of evidence, and to me the PARAGON-HF results were positive in patients with an ejection fraction of 50%, which is not a normal level. The way I interpret the results is, the treatment works in patients with an ejection fraction that is ‘lowish,’ but not at the conventional level of reduced ejection fraction,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who also had no involvement with PARAGON-HF.

Stuart J. Connolly, MD, designated discussant for the report at the congress and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., struck similar notes during his discussion of the report, and called the subgroup analysis by baseline ejection fraction “compelling,” and supported by several secondary findings of the study, the biological plausibility of a link between ejection fraction and treatment response, and by suggestions of a similar effect caused by related drugs in prior studies.

The argument in favor of sacubitril/valsartan’s efficacy in a subgroup of PARAGON-HF patients was also taken up by Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas. “I think it’s legitimate to say that there are HFpEF subgroups that might benefit” from sacubitril/valsartan, such as women. “I think it’s appropriate in this disease to look at subgroups because we have to find something that works for these patients,” she added in a video interview.

But Dr. Jessup also urged caution in interpreting the link between modestly reduced ejection fraction and response to sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF patients because ejection fraction measurements by echocardiography, as done in the trial, are notoriously unreliable. “We need more precise markers of who responds to this drug and who does not,” she said.

PARAGON-HF randomized 4,796 patients at 848 sites in 43 countries who were aged at least 50 years, had signs and symptoms of heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, had evidence on echocardiography of either left atrial enlargement or left ventricular hypertrophy, and had an elevated blood level of natriuretic peptides.

The study’s primary endpoint was the composite rate of total (both first and recurrent) hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. That outcome occurred at a rate of 12.8 events/100 patient-years in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and a rate of 14.6 events/100 patient-years in control patients treated with the angiotensin receptor blocking drug valsartan alone. Those results yielded a relative risk reduction by sacubitril/valsartan of 13% with a P value of .059, just missing statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Solomon’s report the results appeared in an article online and then subsequently in print (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20). The primary endpoint was driven primarily by a 15% relative risk reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure; the two treatment arms showed nearly identical rates of cardiovascular disease death.

Notable secondary findings that reached statistical significance included a 16% relative decrease in total heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular deaths, and urgent heart failure visits with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, as well as a 16% reduction in all investigator-reported events. Other significant benefits linked with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were a 45% relative improvement in functional class, a 30% relative improvement in patients achieving a meaningful increase in a quality of life measure, and a halving of the incidence of worsening renal function with sacubitril/valsartan.

The safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan in the study matched previous reports on the drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, an approved indication since 2015.

The key subgroup analysis detailed by Dr. Solomon was the incidence of the primary endpoint by baseline ejection fraction. Among the 2,495 patients (52% of the study population) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 57% or less when they entered the study, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan cut the primary endpoint incidence by 22%, compared with valsartan alone, a statistically significant difference. Among patients with a baseline ejection fraction of 58% or greater, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan had no effect on the primary endpoint, compared with control patients. Dr. Solomon also reported a statistically significant 22% relative improvement in the primary endpoint among the 2,479 women in the study (52% of the total study cohort) while the drug had no discernible impact among men, but he did not highlight any immediate implication of this finding.

Despite how suggestive the finding related to ejection fraction may be for practice, a major impediment to prescribing sacubitril/valsartan to HFpEF patients may come from pharmacy managers, suggested Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure specialist and professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis.

“The study did not hit its primary endpoint, so pharmacy managers will face no moral issue by withholding the drug” from HFpEF patients, Dr. Mann said in an interview. Because sacubitril/valsartan is substantially costlier than other renin-angiotensin system inhibitor drugs, which are mostly generic, patients may often find it difficult to pay for sacubitril/valsartan themselves if it receives no insurance coverage.

“It’s heartbreaking that the endpoint missed for a disease with no proven treatment. The study may have narrowly missed, but it still missed, and a lot of us had hoped it would be positive. It’s a slippery slope” when investigators try to qualify a trial result that failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a statistically significant effect. “The primary endpoint is the primary endpoint, and we should not overinterpret the data,” Dr. Mann warned.

PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Novartis and from several other companies. Dr. Steg has received personal fees from Novartis and has received personal fees and research funding from several other companies. Dr. Bhatt has been a consultant to and received research funding from several companies but has had no recent relationship with Novartis. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Jessup had no disclosures. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, LivaNova, and Tenaya Therapeutics.

[email protected]

PARIS – The primary endpoint of PARAGON-HF was neutral in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but that didn’t stop some experts from seeing a practice-changing message in its findings.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The results of PARAGON-HF, a major trial of sacubitril/valsartan – a compound already approved for treating heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction – in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), showed a statistically neutral result for the study’s primary endpoint, but with an excruciatingly close near miss for statistical significance and clear benefit in a subgroup of HFpEF patients with a modestly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. These findings seemed to convince some experts to soon try using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) to treat selected patients with HFpEF, driven in large part by the lack of any other agent clearly proven to benefit the large number of patients with this form of heart failure.

HFpEF is “a huge unmet need,” and data from the PARAGON-HF trial “suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may be beneficial in some patients with HFpEF, particularly those with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is not frankly reduced, but less than normal,” specifically patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%, Scott D. Solomon, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology as he reported the primary PARAGON-HF results.

“I’m not speaking for regulators or for guidelines, but I suspect that in this group of patients [with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%] there is at least some rationale to use this treatment,” said Dr. Solomon, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

His suggestion, which cut against the standard rules that govern the interpretation of trial results, met a substantial level of receptivity at the congress.

Trial results “are not black and white, where a P value of .049 means the trial was totally positive, and a P of .051 means it’s totally neutral. That’s misleading, and it’s why the field is moving to different types of [statistical] analysis that give us more leeway in interpreting data,” commented Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris.

“Everything in this trial points to substantial potential benefit. I’m not impressed by the P value that just missed significance. I think this is a very important advance,” said Dr. Steg, who had no involvement in the study, during a press conference at the congress.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree. I look at the totality of evidence, and to me the PARAGON-HF results were positive in patients with an ejection fraction of 50%, which is not a normal level. The way I interpret the results is, the treatment works in patients with an ejection fraction that is ‘lowish,’ but not at the conventional level of reduced ejection fraction,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who also had no involvement with PARAGON-HF.

Stuart J. Connolly, MD, designated discussant for the report at the congress and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., struck similar notes during his discussion of the report, and called the subgroup analysis by baseline ejection fraction “compelling,” and supported by several secondary findings of the study, the biological plausibility of a link between ejection fraction and treatment response, and by suggestions of a similar effect caused by related drugs in prior studies.

The argument in favor of sacubitril/valsartan’s efficacy in a subgroup of PARAGON-HF patients was also taken up by Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas. “I think it’s legitimate to say that there are HFpEF subgroups that might benefit” from sacubitril/valsartan, such as women. “I think it’s appropriate in this disease to look at subgroups because we have to find something that works for these patients,” she added in a video interview.

But Dr. Jessup also urged caution in interpreting the link between modestly reduced ejection fraction and response to sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF patients because ejection fraction measurements by echocardiography, as done in the trial, are notoriously unreliable. “We need more precise markers of who responds to this drug and who does not,” she said.

PARAGON-HF randomized 4,796 patients at 848 sites in 43 countries who were aged at least 50 years, had signs and symptoms of heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, had evidence on echocardiography of either left atrial enlargement or left ventricular hypertrophy, and had an elevated blood level of natriuretic peptides.

The study’s primary endpoint was the composite rate of total (both first and recurrent) hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. That outcome occurred at a rate of 12.8 events/100 patient-years in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and a rate of 14.6 events/100 patient-years in control patients treated with the angiotensin receptor blocking drug valsartan alone. Those results yielded a relative risk reduction by sacubitril/valsartan of 13% with a P value of .059, just missing statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Solomon’s report the results appeared in an article online and then subsequently in print (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20). The primary endpoint was driven primarily by a 15% relative risk reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure; the two treatment arms showed nearly identical rates of cardiovascular disease death.

Notable secondary findings that reached statistical significance included a 16% relative decrease in total heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular deaths, and urgent heart failure visits with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, as well as a 16% reduction in all investigator-reported events. Other significant benefits linked with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were a 45% relative improvement in functional class, a 30% relative improvement in patients achieving a meaningful increase in a quality of life measure, and a halving of the incidence of worsening renal function with sacubitril/valsartan.

The safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan in the study matched previous reports on the drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, an approved indication since 2015.

The key subgroup analysis detailed by Dr. Solomon was the incidence of the primary endpoint by baseline ejection fraction. Among the 2,495 patients (52% of the study population) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 57% or less when they entered the study, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan cut the primary endpoint incidence by 22%, compared with valsartan alone, a statistically significant difference. Among patients with a baseline ejection fraction of 58% or greater, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan had no effect on the primary endpoint, compared with control patients. Dr. Solomon also reported a statistically significant 22% relative improvement in the primary endpoint among the 2,479 women in the study (52% of the total study cohort) while the drug had no discernible impact among men, but he did not highlight any immediate implication of this finding.

Despite how suggestive the finding related to ejection fraction may be for practice, a major impediment to prescribing sacubitril/valsartan to HFpEF patients may come from pharmacy managers, suggested Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure specialist and professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis.

“The study did not hit its primary endpoint, so pharmacy managers will face no moral issue by withholding the drug” from HFpEF patients, Dr. Mann said in an interview. Because sacubitril/valsartan is substantially costlier than other renin-angiotensin system inhibitor drugs, which are mostly generic, patients may often find it difficult to pay for sacubitril/valsartan themselves if it receives no insurance coverage.

“It’s heartbreaking that the endpoint missed for a disease with no proven treatment. The study may have narrowly missed, but it still missed, and a lot of us had hoped it would be positive. It’s a slippery slope” when investigators try to qualify a trial result that failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a statistically significant effect. “The primary endpoint is the primary endpoint, and we should not overinterpret the data,” Dr. Mann warned.

PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Novartis and from several other companies. Dr. Steg has received personal fees from Novartis and has received personal fees and research funding from several other companies. Dr. Bhatt has been a consultant to and received research funding from several companies but has had no recent relationship with Novartis. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Jessup had no disclosures. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, LivaNova, and Tenaya Therapeutics.

[email protected]

Background: Current AFib management guidelines recommend ischemic stroke risk stratification with CHA₂DS₂-VASc score; however, emerging studies have highlighted limitations of this score.

Dr. Cooke is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Background: Current AFib management guidelines recommend ischemic stroke risk stratification with CHA₂DS₂-VASc score; however, emerging studies have highlighted limitations of this score.

Dr. Cooke is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Background: Current AFib management guidelines recommend ischemic stroke risk stratification with CHA₂DS₂-VASc score; however, emerging studies have highlighted limitations of this score.

Dr. Cooke is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

People with psoriasis appear to have both an increased risk of cancer and an increased risk of cancer-related mortality, according to a meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.

Compared with a psoriasis-free population, having a diagnosis of severe psoriasis was associated with a 22% increase in cancer risk, Alex Trafford of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues reported in JAMA Dermatology. The risk of cancer mortality was also increased by 22% among those with severe psoriasis.

The site-specific risks ranged from a low of 18% for colon cancer to more than a twofold increased risk for oral and esophageal cancer, according to the investigators.

Since these were associations only, any underlying mechanism is still unclear, they wrote. The chronic inflammation that drives psoriasis can also drive the development of cancer, but immunomodulatory therapies may also play a part, they suggested.

“Of particular relevance in this regard are biological therapies, which are being increasingly used for the management of psoriasis,” they added. “Although preliminary studies have suggested little to no increased risk of cancer incidence in patients with psoriasis receiving these therapies, further study allowing greater follow-up and increased power is required to properly examine the potential cancer risk, particularly for site-specific cancers.”

The analysis included 58 studies, published between 1983 and 2017. Nine of these reported risks for cancer incidence among patients with severe psoriasis, and seven reported the risk of cancer mortality among patients with all severities of psoriasis.

Overall, severe psoriasis was associated with an increased cancer risk of 22%; for all severities of psoriasis combined, the risk increase was 18%. Relative risks for specific cancer types were as follows: colon, 1.18; colorectal, 1.34; kidney, 1.58; laryngeal, 1.79; liver, 1.83; lymphoma, 1.40; non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 1.28; keratinocyte cancers, 1.71; esophageal 2.05; oral cavity, 2.80; and pancreatic, 1.41.

Overall cancer mortality risk was 22% higher in patients with severe psoriasis than the general population. Site-specific relative mortality risks included liver, 1.43; esophageal 2.53; and pancreatic, 1.31.

In light of these findings, clinicians should stress lifestyle modifications known to decrease cancer risk, the investigators said. “Although it has been noted that lifestyle behavior change is challenging for healthcare professionals to implement, the importance of a more holistic approach to psoriasis care involving lifestyle behavior change is reinforced through the results of this meta-analysis.”

Among the coauthors were Darren M. Ashcroft, PhD, the senior author, and Christopher Griffiths, MD, both of the University of Manchester. Dr. Ashcroft reported receiving research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, and the Leo Foundation. Dr. Griffiths reported receiving honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sandoz, and UCB. The lead author and the other authors had no disclosures. The Global Psoriasis Atlas (GPA) Collaborating Organizations (the International Federation of Psoriasis Associations, the International League of Dermatological Societies, and the International Psoriasis Council) were involved with funding of the study.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Trafford A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Oct 16. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3056.

People with psoriasis appear to have both an increased risk of cancer and an increased risk of cancer-related mortality, according to a meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.

Compared with a psoriasis-free population, having a diagnosis of severe psoriasis was associated with a 22% increase in cancer risk, Alex Trafford of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues reported in JAMA Dermatology. The risk of cancer mortality was also increased by 22% among those with severe psoriasis.

The site-specific risks ranged from a low of 18% for colon cancer to more than a twofold increased risk for oral and esophageal cancer, according to the investigators.

Since these were associations only, any underlying mechanism is still unclear, they wrote. The chronic inflammation that drives psoriasis can also drive the development of cancer, but immunomodulatory therapies may also play a part, they suggested.

“Of particular relevance in this regard are biological therapies, which are being increasingly used for the management of psoriasis,” they added. “Although preliminary studies have suggested little to no increased risk of cancer incidence in patients with psoriasis receiving these therapies, further study allowing greater follow-up and increased power is required to properly examine the potential cancer risk, particularly for site-specific cancers.”

The analysis included 58 studies, published between 1983 and 2017. Nine of these reported risks for cancer incidence among patients with severe psoriasis, and seven reported the risk of cancer mortality among patients with all severities of psoriasis.

Overall, severe psoriasis was associated with an increased cancer risk of 22%; for all severities of psoriasis combined, the risk increase was 18%. Relative risks for specific cancer types were as follows: colon, 1.18; colorectal, 1.34; kidney, 1.58; laryngeal, 1.79; liver, 1.83; lymphoma, 1.40; non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 1.28; keratinocyte cancers, 1.71; esophageal 2.05; oral cavity, 2.80; and pancreatic, 1.41.

Overall cancer mortality risk was 22% higher in patients with severe psoriasis than the general population. Site-specific relative mortality risks included liver, 1.43; esophageal 2.53; and pancreatic, 1.31.

In light of these findings, clinicians should stress lifestyle modifications known to decrease cancer risk, the investigators said. “Although it has been noted that lifestyle behavior change is challenging for healthcare professionals to implement, the importance of a more holistic approach to psoriasis care involving lifestyle behavior change is reinforced through the results of this meta-analysis.”

Among the coauthors were Darren M. Ashcroft, PhD, the senior author, and Christopher Griffiths, MD, both of the University of Manchester. Dr. Ashcroft reported receiving research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, and the Leo Foundation. Dr. Griffiths reported receiving honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sandoz, and UCB. The lead author and the other authors had no disclosures. The Global Psoriasis Atlas (GPA) Collaborating Organizations (the International Federation of Psoriasis Associations, the International League of Dermatological Societies, and the International Psoriasis Council) were involved with funding of the study.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Trafford A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Oct 16. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3056.

People with psoriasis appear to have both an increased risk of cancer and an increased risk of cancer-related mortality, according to a meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.

Compared with a psoriasis-free population, having a diagnosis of severe psoriasis was associated with a 22% increase in cancer risk, Alex Trafford of the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues reported in JAMA Dermatology. The risk of cancer mortality was also increased by 22% among those with severe psoriasis.

The site-specific risks ranged from a low of 18% for colon cancer to more than a twofold increased risk for oral and esophageal cancer, according to the investigators.

Since these were associations only, any underlying mechanism is still unclear, they wrote. The chronic inflammation that drives psoriasis can also drive the development of cancer, but immunomodulatory therapies may also play a part, they suggested.

“Of particular relevance in this regard are biological therapies, which are being increasingly used for the management of psoriasis,” they added. “Although preliminary studies have suggested little to no increased risk of cancer incidence in patients with psoriasis receiving these therapies, further study allowing greater follow-up and increased power is required to properly examine the potential cancer risk, particularly for site-specific cancers.”

The analysis included 58 studies, published between 1983 and 2017. Nine of these reported risks for cancer incidence among patients with severe psoriasis, and seven reported the risk of cancer mortality among patients with all severities of psoriasis.

Overall, severe psoriasis was associated with an increased cancer risk of 22%; for all severities of psoriasis combined, the risk increase was 18%. Relative risks for specific cancer types were as follows: colon, 1.18; colorectal, 1.34; kidney, 1.58; laryngeal, 1.79; liver, 1.83; lymphoma, 1.40; non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 1.28; keratinocyte cancers, 1.71; esophageal 2.05; oral cavity, 2.80; and pancreatic, 1.41.

Overall cancer mortality risk was 22% higher in patients with severe psoriasis than the general population. Site-specific relative mortality risks included liver, 1.43; esophageal 2.53; and pancreatic, 1.31.

In light of these findings, clinicians should stress lifestyle modifications known to decrease cancer risk, the investigators said. “Although it has been noted that lifestyle behavior change is challenging for healthcare professionals to implement, the importance of a more holistic approach to psoriasis care involving lifestyle behavior change is reinforced through the results of this meta-analysis.”

Among the coauthors were Darren M. Ashcroft, PhD, the senior author, and Christopher Griffiths, MD, both of the University of Manchester. Dr. Ashcroft reported receiving research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, and the Leo Foundation. Dr. Griffiths reported receiving honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sandoz, and UCB. The lead author and the other authors had no disclosures. The Global Psoriasis Atlas (GPA) Collaborating Organizations (the International Federation of Psoriasis Associations, the International League of Dermatological Societies, and the International Psoriasis Council) were involved with funding of the study.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Trafford A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Oct 16. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3056.

While the incidence of most cancers is falling, endometrial cancer rates continue to rise, in large part because of increasing life expectancy and obesity rates. However, what is even more alarming is the observation that there is a clear disparity in outcomes between black and white women with this disease. But there are things that all health care providers, including nononcologists, can do to help to overcome this disparity.

Black women are nearly twice as likely as non-Hispanic white women to die from the endometrial cancer. The 5-year survival for stage III and IV cancer is 43% for non-Hispanic white women, yet only 25% for black women.¹ For a long time, this survival disparity was assumed to be a function of the more aggressive cancer histologies, such as serous, which are more commonly seen in black women. These high-grade cancers are more likely to present in advanced stages and with poorer responses to treatments; however, the predisposition to aggressive cancers tells only part of the story of racial disparities in endometrial cancer and their presentation at later stages. Indeed, fueling the problem are the findings that black women report symptoms less, experience more delays in diagnosis or more frequent deviations from guideline-directed diagnostics, undergo more morbid surgical approaches, receive less surgical staging, are enrolled less in clinical trials, have lower socioeconomic status and lower rates of health insurance, and receive less differential administration of adjuvant therapies, as well as have a background of higher all-cause mortality and comorbidities. While this array of contributing factors may seem overwhelming, it also can be considered a guide for health care providers because most of these factors, unlike histologic cell type, are modifiable, and it is important that we all consider what role we can play in dismantling them.

Black women are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care upon presentation. Research by Kemi M. Doll, MD, from the University of Washington, Seattle, demonstrated that, among women with endometrial cancers, black women were less likely to have documented histories of postmenopausal bleeding within 2 years of the diagnosis, presumably because of factors related to underreporting and inadequate ascertainment by medical professionals of whether or not they had experienced postmenopausal bleeding.² Additionally, when postmenopausal bleeding was reported by these women, they were less likely to receive the appropriate diagnostic work-up as described by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines, and their bleeding was more likely to be ascribed to nonmalignant pathologies. Her work raises the important question about how black women view the health care profession and their willingness to engage early in good faith that their concerns will be met. These concerns are understandable given the documented different responsiveness of providers to black patients’ symptoms such as pain.³

Once diagnosed with endometrial cancer, black women are less likely to receive comprehensive surgical staging and less likely to have their surgery performed by a minimally invasive route, both of which are considered the standard of care.^1,4 Lower rates of minimally invasive surgery expose black women to increased morbidity and are deleterious to quality of life, return to work, and functionality. If surgical staging is omitted, which is more common for these women, clinicians are less able to appropriately prescribe adjuvant therapies which might prevent lethal recurrences from unrecognized advanced cancer or they may overtreat early-stage cancers with adjuvant therapy to make up for gaps in staging information.^1,5 However, adjuvant therapy is not a benign intervention, and itself is associated with morbidity.

As mentioned earlier, black women are at a higher risk for developing more aggressive cancer subtypes, and this phenomenon may appear unmodifiable. However, important research is looking at the concept of epigenetics and how modifiable environmental factors may contribute to the development of more aggressive types of cancer through gene expression. Additionally, differences in the gene mutations and gene expression of cancers more frequently acquired by black women may negatively influence how these cancers respond to conventional therapies. In the GOG210 study, which evaluated the outcomes of women with comprehensively staged endometrial cancer, black women demonstrated worse survival from cancer, even though they were more likely to receive chemotherapy.⁵ One explanation for this finding is that these women’s cancers were less responsive to conventional chemotherapy agents.

This raises a critical issue of disparity in clinical trial inclusion. Black women are underrepresented in clinical trials in the United States. There is a dark history in medical research and minority populations, particularly African American populations, which continues to be remembered and felt. However, not all of this underrepresentation may be from unwillingness to participate: For black women, issues of lack of access to or being considered for clinical trials is also a factor. But without adequate representation in trials of novel agents, we will not know whether they are effective for all populations, and indeed it would appear that we should not assume they are equally effective based on the results to date.

So how can we all individually help to overcome these disparities in endometrial cancer outcomes? To begin with, it is important to acknowledge that black women commonly report negative experiences with reproductive health care. From early in their lives, we must sensitively engage all of our patients and ensure they all feel heard and valued. They should know that their symptoms, including pain or bleeding, are taken and treated seriously. If we can do better with this throughout a woman’s earlier reproductive health care experiences, perhaps later in her life, when she experiences postmenopausal bleeding, she will feel comfortable raising this issue with her health care provider who in turn must take this symptom seriously and expeditiously engage all of the appropriate diagnostic resources. Health care delivery is about more than simply offering the best treatment. We also are responsible for education and shared decision making to ensure that we can deliver the best treatment.

We also can support organizations such as ECANA (Endometrial Cancer Action Network for African Americans) which serves to inform black women in their communities about the threat that endometrial cancer plays and empowers them through education about its symptoms and the need to seek care.

Systematically we must ensure black women have access to the same standards in surgical and nonsurgical management of these cancers. This includes referral of all women with cancer, including minorities, to high-volume centers with oncology specialists and explaining to those who may be reluctant to travel that this is associated with improved outcomes in the short and long term. We also must actively consider our black patients for clinical trials, sensitively educate them about their benefits, and overcome barriers to access. One simple way to do this is to explain that the treatments that we have developed for endometrial cancer have mostly been tested on white women, which may explain in part why they do not work so well for nonwhite women.

The racial disparity in endometrial cancer outcomes cannot entirely be attributed to the passive phenomenon of patient and tumor genetics, particularly with consideration that race is a social construct rather than a biological phenomenon. We can all make a difference through advocacy, access, education, and heightened awareness to combat this inequity and overcome these disparate outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Oct;143(1):98-104.

2. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec;219(6):593.e1-14.

3. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jun 1;30(16):1980-8.

4. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;128(3):526-34.

5. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov;219(5):459.e1-11.

While the incidence of most cancers is falling, endometrial cancer rates continue to rise, in large part because of increasing life expectancy and obesity rates. However, what is even more alarming is the observation that there is a clear disparity in outcomes between black and white women with this disease. But there are things that all health care providers, including nononcologists, can do to help to overcome this disparity.

Black women are nearly twice as likely as non-Hispanic white women to die from the endometrial cancer. The 5-year survival for stage III and IV cancer is 43% for non-Hispanic white women, yet only 25% for black women.¹ For a long time, this survival disparity was assumed to be a function of the more aggressive cancer histologies, such as serous, which are more commonly seen in black women. These high-grade cancers are more likely to present in advanced stages and with poorer responses to treatments; however, the predisposition to aggressive cancers tells only part of the story of racial disparities in endometrial cancer and their presentation at later stages. Indeed, fueling the problem are the findings that black women report symptoms less, experience more delays in diagnosis or more frequent deviations from guideline-directed diagnostics, undergo more morbid surgical approaches, receive less surgical staging, are enrolled less in clinical trials, have lower socioeconomic status and lower rates of health insurance, and receive less differential administration of adjuvant therapies, as well as have a background of higher all-cause mortality and comorbidities. While this array of contributing factors may seem overwhelming, it also can be considered a guide for health care providers because most of these factors, unlike histologic cell type, are modifiable, and it is important that we all consider what role we can play in dismantling them.

Black women are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care upon presentation. Research by Kemi M. Doll, MD, from the University of Washington, Seattle, demonstrated that, among women with endometrial cancers, black women were less likely to have documented histories of postmenopausal bleeding within 2 years of the diagnosis, presumably because of factors related to underreporting and inadequate ascertainment by medical professionals of whether or not they had experienced postmenopausal bleeding.² Additionally, when postmenopausal bleeding was reported by these women, they were less likely to receive the appropriate diagnostic work-up as described by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines, and their bleeding was more likely to be ascribed to nonmalignant pathologies. Her work raises the important question about how black women view the health care profession and their willingness to engage early in good faith that their concerns will be met. These concerns are understandable given the documented different responsiveness of providers to black patients’ symptoms such as pain.³

Once diagnosed with endometrial cancer, black women are less likely to receive comprehensive surgical staging and less likely to have their surgery performed by a minimally invasive route, both of which are considered the standard of care.^1,4 Lower rates of minimally invasive surgery expose black women to increased morbidity and are deleterious to quality of life, return to work, and functionality. If surgical staging is omitted, which is more common for these women, clinicians are less able to appropriately prescribe adjuvant therapies which might prevent lethal recurrences from unrecognized advanced cancer or they may overtreat early-stage cancers with adjuvant therapy to make up for gaps in staging information.^1,5 However, adjuvant therapy is not a benign intervention, and itself is associated with morbidity.

As mentioned earlier, black women are at a higher risk for developing more aggressive cancer subtypes, and this phenomenon may appear unmodifiable. However, important research is looking at the concept of epigenetics and how modifiable environmental factors may contribute to the development of more aggressive types of cancer through gene expression. Additionally, differences in the gene mutations and gene expression of cancers more frequently acquired by black women may negatively influence how these cancers respond to conventional therapies. In the GOG210 study, which evaluated the outcomes of women with comprehensively staged endometrial cancer, black women demonstrated worse survival from cancer, even though they were more likely to receive chemotherapy.⁵ One explanation for this finding is that these women’s cancers were less responsive to conventional chemotherapy agents.

This raises a critical issue of disparity in clinical trial inclusion. Black women are underrepresented in clinical trials in the United States. There is a dark history in medical research and minority populations, particularly African American populations, which continues to be remembered and felt. However, not all of this underrepresentation may be from unwillingness to participate: For black women, issues of lack of access to or being considered for clinical trials is also a factor. But without adequate representation in trials of novel agents, we will not know whether they are effective for all populations, and indeed it would appear that we should not assume they are equally effective based on the results to date.

So how can we all individually help to overcome these disparities in endometrial cancer outcomes? To begin with, it is important to acknowledge that black women commonly report negative experiences with reproductive health care. From early in their lives, we must sensitively engage all of our patients and ensure they all feel heard and valued. They should know that their symptoms, including pain or bleeding, are taken and treated seriously. If we can do better with this throughout a woman’s earlier reproductive health care experiences, perhaps later in her life, when she experiences postmenopausal bleeding, she will feel comfortable raising this issue with her health care provider who in turn must take this symptom seriously and expeditiously engage all of the appropriate diagnostic resources. Health care delivery is about more than simply offering the best treatment. We also are responsible for education and shared decision making to ensure that we can deliver the best treatment.

We also can support organizations such as ECANA (Endometrial Cancer Action Network for African Americans) which serves to inform black women in their communities about the threat that endometrial cancer plays and empowers them through education about its symptoms and the need to seek care.

Systematically we must ensure black women have access to the same standards in surgical and nonsurgical management of these cancers. This includes referral of all women with cancer, including minorities, to high-volume centers with oncology specialists and explaining to those who may be reluctant to travel that this is associated with improved outcomes in the short and long term. We also must actively consider our black patients for clinical trials, sensitively educate them about their benefits, and overcome barriers to access. One simple way to do this is to explain that the treatments that we have developed for endometrial cancer have mostly been tested on white women, which may explain in part why they do not work so well for nonwhite women.

The racial disparity in endometrial cancer outcomes cannot entirely be attributed to the passive phenomenon of patient and tumor genetics, particularly with consideration that race is a social construct rather than a biological phenomenon. We can all make a difference through advocacy, access, education, and heightened awareness to combat this inequity and overcome these disparate outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Oct;143(1):98-104.

2. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec;219(6):593.e1-14.

3. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jun 1;30(16):1980-8.

4. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;128(3):526-34.

5. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov;219(5):459.e1-11.

While the incidence of most cancers is falling, endometrial cancer rates continue to rise, in large part because of increasing life expectancy and obesity rates. However, what is even more alarming is the observation that there is a clear disparity in outcomes between black and white women with this disease. But there are things that all health care providers, including nononcologists, can do to help to overcome this disparity.

Black women are nearly twice as likely as non-Hispanic white women to die from the endometrial cancer. The 5-year survival for stage III and IV cancer is 43% for non-Hispanic white women, yet only 25% for black women.¹ For a long time, this survival disparity was assumed to be a function of the more aggressive cancer histologies, such as serous, which are more commonly seen in black women. These high-grade cancers are more likely to present in advanced stages and with poorer responses to treatments; however, the predisposition to aggressive cancers tells only part of the story of racial disparities in endometrial cancer and their presentation at later stages. Indeed, fueling the problem are the findings that black women report symptoms less, experience more delays in diagnosis or more frequent deviations from guideline-directed diagnostics, undergo more morbid surgical approaches, receive less surgical staging, are enrolled less in clinical trials, have lower socioeconomic status and lower rates of health insurance, and receive less differential administration of adjuvant therapies, as well as have a background of higher all-cause mortality and comorbidities. While this array of contributing factors may seem overwhelming, it also can be considered a guide for health care providers because most of these factors, unlike histologic cell type, are modifiable, and it is important that we all consider what role we can play in dismantling them.

Black women are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care upon presentation. Research by Kemi M. Doll, MD, from the University of Washington, Seattle, demonstrated that, among women with endometrial cancers, black women were less likely to have documented histories of postmenopausal bleeding within 2 years of the diagnosis, presumably because of factors related to underreporting and inadequate ascertainment by medical professionals of whether or not they had experienced postmenopausal bleeding.² Additionally, when postmenopausal bleeding was reported by these women, they were less likely to receive the appropriate diagnostic work-up as described by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines, and their bleeding was more likely to be ascribed to nonmalignant pathologies. Her work raises the important question about how black women view the health care profession and their willingness to engage early in good faith that their concerns will be met. These concerns are understandable given the documented different responsiveness of providers to black patients’ symptoms such as pain.³

Once diagnosed with endometrial cancer, black women are less likely to receive comprehensive surgical staging and less likely to have their surgery performed by a minimally invasive route, both of which are considered the standard of care.^1,4 Lower rates of minimally invasive surgery expose black women to increased morbidity and are deleterious to quality of life, return to work, and functionality. If surgical staging is omitted, which is more common for these women, clinicians are less able to appropriately prescribe adjuvant therapies which might prevent lethal recurrences from unrecognized advanced cancer or they may overtreat early-stage cancers with adjuvant therapy to make up for gaps in staging information.^1,5 However, adjuvant therapy is not a benign intervention, and itself is associated with morbidity.

As mentioned earlier, black women are at a higher risk for developing more aggressive cancer subtypes, and this phenomenon may appear unmodifiable. However, important research is looking at the concept of epigenetics and how modifiable environmental factors may contribute to the development of more aggressive types of cancer through gene expression. Additionally, differences in the gene mutations and gene expression of cancers more frequently acquired by black women may negatively influence how these cancers respond to conventional therapies. In the GOG210 study, which evaluated the outcomes of women with comprehensively staged endometrial cancer, black women demonstrated worse survival from cancer, even though they were more likely to receive chemotherapy.⁵ One explanation for this finding is that these women’s cancers were less responsive to conventional chemotherapy agents.

This raises a critical issue of disparity in clinical trial inclusion. Black women are underrepresented in clinical trials in the United States. There is a dark history in medical research and minority populations, particularly African American populations, which continues to be remembered and felt. However, not all of this underrepresentation may be from unwillingness to participate: For black women, issues of lack of access to or being considered for clinical trials is also a factor. But without adequate representation in trials of novel agents, we will not know whether they are effective for all populations, and indeed it would appear that we should not assume they are equally effective based on the results to date.

So how can we all individually help to overcome these disparities in endometrial cancer outcomes? To begin with, it is important to acknowledge that black women commonly report negative experiences with reproductive health care. From early in their lives, we must sensitively engage all of our patients and ensure they all feel heard and valued. They should know that their symptoms, including pain or bleeding, are taken and treated seriously. If we can do better with this throughout a woman’s earlier reproductive health care experiences, perhaps later in her life, when she experiences postmenopausal bleeding, she will feel comfortable raising this issue with her health care provider who in turn must take this symptom seriously and expeditiously engage all of the appropriate diagnostic resources. Health care delivery is about more than simply offering the best treatment. We also are responsible for education and shared decision making to ensure that we can deliver the best treatment.

We also can support organizations such as ECANA (Endometrial Cancer Action Network for African Americans) which serves to inform black women in their communities about the threat that endometrial cancer plays and empowers them through education about its symptoms and the need to seek care.

Systematically we must ensure black women have access to the same standards in surgical and nonsurgical management of these cancers. This includes referral of all women with cancer, including minorities, to high-volume centers with oncology specialists and explaining to those who may be reluctant to travel that this is associated with improved outcomes in the short and long term. We also must actively consider our black patients for clinical trials, sensitively educate them about their benefits, and overcome barriers to access. One simple way to do this is to explain that the treatments that we have developed for endometrial cancer have mostly been tested on white women, which may explain in part why they do not work so well for nonwhite women.

The racial disparity in endometrial cancer outcomes cannot entirely be attributed to the passive phenomenon of patient and tumor genetics, particularly with consideration that race is a social construct rather than a biological phenomenon. We can all make a difference through advocacy, access, education, and heightened awareness to combat this inequity and overcome these disparate outcomes.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Oct;143(1):98-104.

2. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec;219(6):593.e1-14.

3. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jun 1;30(16):1980-8.

4. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;128(3):526-34.

5. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov;219(5):459.e1-11.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – If the United States does not step up and create a thriving biosimilars market soon, it risks destroying the market not only domestically but internationally as well.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

This was the warning Gillian Woollett, senior vice president at Avalere, provided to attendees at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

She prefaced her warning by quoting Alex Azar, secretary of Health & Human Services, who said that those “trying to hold back biosimilars are simply on the wrong side of history,” though Ms. Woollett said they “may be on the right side of the current economic model in the United States.”

And despite the probusiness, procompetition philosophy of current HHS leadership, there has been very little movement on creating a competitive market for biosimilars in the United States, evidenced by the very expensive regulatory requirements that biosimilar manufacturers need to meet in order to get products to market.

“It’s not that we won’t have competition in the U.S.,” she said. “I think we will. We do have that innovation. ... It’s just that biosimilars may not ultimately be part of that competition. And for that, we will pay a price, and I actually think the whole world will pay a price because if we are not providing the [return on investment], I am not sure the other markets can sustain it.”

One issue biosimilars have is the lack of recognition of the value that they bring.

“That biosimilars offer the same clinical outcomes at a lower price is yet to be a recognized value,” she said. “To me that’s a really surprising situation in the United States.”

Ms. Woollett continued: “It’s not even acknowledged as a basic truth in the United States, which again suggests the business model may not be there for biosimilars.”

Ms. Woollett disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her presentation.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – If the United States does not step up and create a thriving biosimilars market soon, it risks destroying the market not only domestically but internationally as well.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

This was the warning Gillian Woollett, senior vice president at Avalere, provided to attendees at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

She prefaced her warning by quoting Alex Azar, secretary of Health & Human Services, who said that those “trying to hold back biosimilars are simply on the wrong side of history,” though Ms. Woollett said they “may be on the right side of the current economic model in the United States.”

And despite the probusiness, procompetition philosophy of current HHS leadership, there has been very little movement on creating a competitive market for biosimilars in the United States, evidenced by the very expensive regulatory requirements that biosimilar manufacturers need to meet in order to get products to market.

“It’s not that we won’t have competition in the U.S.,” she said. “I think we will. We do have that innovation. ... It’s just that biosimilars may not ultimately be part of that competition. And for that, we will pay a price, and I actually think the whole world will pay a price because if we are not providing the [return on investment], I am not sure the other markets can sustain it.”

One issue biosimilars have is the lack of recognition of the value that they bring.

“That biosimilars offer the same clinical outcomes at a lower price is yet to be a recognized value,” she said. “To me that’s a really surprising situation in the United States.”

Ms. Woollett continued: “It’s not even acknowledged as a basic truth in the United States, which again suggests the business model may not be there for biosimilars.”

Ms. Woollett disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her presentation.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – If the United States does not step up and create a thriving biosimilars market soon, it risks destroying the market not only domestically but internationally as well.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

This was the warning Gillian Woollett, senior vice president at Avalere, provided to attendees at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

She prefaced her warning by quoting Alex Azar, secretary of Health & Human Services, who said that those “trying to hold back biosimilars are simply on the wrong side of history,” though Ms. Woollett said they “may be on the right side of the current economic model in the United States.”

And despite the probusiness, procompetition philosophy of current HHS leadership, there has been very little movement on creating a competitive market for biosimilars in the United States, evidenced by the very expensive regulatory requirements that biosimilar manufacturers need to meet in order to get products to market.

“It’s not that we won’t have competition in the U.S.,” she said. “I think we will. We do have that innovation. ... It’s just that biosimilars may not ultimately be part of that competition. And for that, we will pay a price, and I actually think the whole world will pay a price because if we are not providing the [return on investment], I am not sure the other markets can sustain it.”

One issue biosimilars have is the lack of recognition of the value that they bring.

“That biosimilars offer the same clinical outcomes at a lower price is yet to be a recognized value,” she said. “To me that’s a really surprising situation in the United States.”

Ms. Woollett continued: “It’s not even acknowledged as a basic truth in the United States, which again suggests the business model may not be there for biosimilars.”

Ms. Woollett disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her presentation.

[email protected]

The average family of four will see a 4% drop in its premium for a benchmark plan on the HealthCare.gov Marketplace in 2020, compared with 2019, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

That family’s $1,520 premium for coverage next year will, however, be 74% higher than the average of $873 for the same plan in 2016. The situation is similar for a single person with a benchmark plan – defined as the second-lowest-priced Marketplace health insurance plan in the Silver category. The average premium for a 27-year-old, $388, for coverage in 2020 also will be 4% lower than in 2019, but that’s still 62% higher than in 2016, CMS said in a recent report.

The 4% average reductions for 2020 follow a 1% decrease for a 27-year-old on the benchmark plan and a $1 increase for a family of four between 2018 and 2019. “We have been committed to taking every step possible to lower premiums and provide more choices. A second year of declining premiums and expanding choice is proof that our actions to promote more stability are working. But premiums are still too high for people without subsidies,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement.

Consumers looking for health care coverage on 1 of the 38 state exchanges during the upcoming open enrollment period (Nov. 1 to Dec. 15) also will have more choices. The average number of qualified health plans available to enrollees will be 37.9 for the 2020 plan year, compared with 25.9 for 2019 and 24.8 in 2018. The number of companies issuing those plans also rose for the second consecutive year, going from 132 for the 2018 plan year to 155 in 2019 and 175 in 2020, CMS reported.

[email protected]

The average family of four will see a 4% drop in its premium for a benchmark plan on the HealthCare.gov Marketplace in 2020, compared with 2019, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

That family’s $1,520 premium for coverage next year will, however, be 74% higher than the average of $873 for the same plan in 2016. The situation is similar for a single person with a benchmark plan – defined as the second-lowest-priced Marketplace health insurance plan in the Silver category. The average premium for a 27-year-old, $388, for coverage in 2020 also will be 4% lower than in 2019, but that’s still 62% higher than in 2016, CMS said in a recent report.

The 4% average reductions for 2020 follow a 1% decrease for a 27-year-old on the benchmark plan and a $1 increase for a family of four between 2018 and 2019. “We have been committed to taking every step possible to lower premiums and provide more choices. A second year of declining premiums and expanding choice is proof that our actions to promote more stability are working. But premiums are still too high for people without subsidies,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement.

Consumers looking for health care coverage on 1 of the 38 state exchanges during the upcoming open enrollment period (Nov. 1 to Dec. 15) also will have more choices. The average number of qualified health plans available to enrollees will be 37.9 for the 2020 plan year, compared with 25.9 for 2019 and 24.8 in 2018. The number of companies issuing those plans also rose for the second consecutive year, going from 132 for the 2018 plan year to 155 in 2019 and 175 in 2020, CMS reported.

[email protected]

The average family of four will see a 4% drop in its premium for a benchmark plan on the HealthCare.gov Marketplace in 2020, compared with 2019, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

That family’s $1,520 premium for coverage next year will, however, be 74% higher than the average of $873 for the same plan in 2016. The situation is similar for a single person with a benchmark plan – defined as the second-lowest-priced Marketplace health insurance plan in the Silver category. The average premium for a 27-year-old, $388, for coverage in 2020 also will be 4% lower than in 2019, but that’s still 62% higher than in 2016, CMS said in a recent report.

The 4% average reductions for 2020 follow a 1% decrease for a 27-year-old on the benchmark plan and a $1 increase for a family of four between 2018 and 2019. “We have been committed to taking every step possible to lower premiums and provide more choices. A second year of declining premiums and expanding choice is proof that our actions to promote more stability are working. But premiums are still too high for people without subsidies,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement.

Consumers looking for health care coverage on 1 of the 38 state exchanges during the upcoming open enrollment period (Nov. 1 to Dec. 15) also will have more choices. The average number of qualified health plans available to enrollees will be 37.9 for the 2020 plan year, compared with 25.9 for 2019 and 24.8 in 2018. The number of companies issuing those plans also rose for the second consecutive year, going from 132 for the 2018 plan year to 155 in 2019 and 175 in 2020, CMS reported.

[email protected]

Key clinical point: Follow-up consultations with migraine patients via telemedicine are effective and can increase physician productivity and patient convenience.

Major finding: Migraine disability assessment improved by an average of 24 points in the telemedicine patients and by 19 points in the control group.

Study details: A single-center, randomized study with 40 migraine patients.

Disclosures: The study received partial funding from Merck.

Citation: Friedman DI. Headache. 2019 June;59(S1):1-208, LBOR01

Key clinical point: Follow-up consultations with migraine patients via telemedicine are effective and can increase physician productivity and patient convenience.

Major finding: Migraine disability assessment improved by an average of 24 points in the telemedicine patients and by 19 points in the control group.

Study details: A single-center, randomized study with 40 migraine patients.

Disclosures: The study received partial funding from Merck.

Citation: Friedman DI. Headache. 2019 June;59(S1):1-208, LBOR01

Key clinical point: Follow-up consultations with migraine patients via telemedicine are effective and can increase physician productivity and patient convenience.

Major finding: Migraine disability assessment improved by an average of 24 points in the telemedicine patients and by 19 points in the control group.

Study details: A single-center, randomized study with 40 migraine patients.

Disclosures: The study received partial funding from Merck.

Citation: Friedman DI. Headache. 2019 June;59(S1):1-208, LBOR01

Key clinical point: Loudness discomfort levels and temporal auditory processing may help diagnosis patients with vestibular migraine (VM).

Major finding: VM patients experienced response latencies with longer frequencies and a lower noise tolerance, compared with patients without migraine. The statistically significant findings showed that “the frequency following response latencies were significantly longer in the patients with vestibular migraine than in the control group, suggesting altered pure tone temporal processing, which may also affect the processing of complex sounds,” noted the investigators. “The lower discomfort thresholds suggest the presence of mild hyperacusis, in concordance with other previous studies.”

Study details: Fifty-four women were split up into two groups: 29 women with VM and 25 healthy women without migraine.

Disclosures: The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Takeuti AA, et al. BMC Neurol. 2019 Jun 27;19(1):144. doi: 10.1186/s12883-019-1368-5.

Key clinical point: Loudness discomfort levels and temporal auditory processing may help diagnosis patients with vestibular migraine (VM).

Major finding: VM patients experienced response latencies with longer frequencies and a lower noise tolerance, compared with patients without migraine. The statistically significant findings showed that “the frequency following response latencies were significantly longer in the patients with vestibular migraine than in the control group, suggesting altered pure tone temporal processing, which may also affect the processing of complex sounds,” noted the investigators. “The lower discomfort thresholds suggest the presence of mild hyperacusis, in concordance with other previous studies.”

Study details: Fifty-four women were split up into two groups: 29 women with VM and 25 healthy women without migraine.

Disclosures: The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Takeuti AA, et al. BMC Neurol. 2019 Jun 27;19(1):144. doi: 10.1186/s12883-019-1368-5.

Key clinical point: Loudness discomfort levels and temporal auditory processing may help diagnosis patients with vestibular migraine (VM).

Major finding: VM patients experienced response latencies with longer frequencies and a lower noise tolerance, compared with patients without migraine. The statistically significant findings showed that “the frequency following response latencies were significantly longer in the patients with vestibular migraine than in the control group, suggesting altered pure tone temporal processing, which may also affect the processing of complex sounds,” noted the investigators. “The lower discomfort thresholds suggest the presence of mild hyperacusis, in concordance with other previous studies.”

Study details: Fifty-four women were split up into two groups: 29 women with VM and 25 healthy women without migraine.

Disclosures: The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Takeuti AA, et al. BMC Neurol. 2019 Jun 27;19(1):144. doi: 10.1186/s12883-019-1368-5.

Key clinical point: Patients that cycle through migraine preventive medications have a higher economic burden.

Major finding: Migraine patients cycling through more than two preventive migraine medications (PMMs) had an increased financial burden, compared with patients that received their initial medication class. “Mean all-cause total direct costs, including prescription costs, were significantly higher in PMM2 ($13,429) and PMM3 ($18,394) subgroups versus the persistent subgroup ($11,941),” noted the investigators

Study details: This was a retrospective observational study of 55,402 adult patients with migraine beginning their first PMM: antidepressants, antiepileptics, beta blockers, or neurotoxins. Patients had to have continuous medical and prescription enrollment for 12 months to be included in the study.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company funded and designed the study. All study investigators reported being employees and stockholders of Eli Lily and Company.

Citation: Ford JH, et al. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019 Jan;25(1):46-59. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.18058.

Key clinical point: Patients that cycle through migraine preventive medications have a higher economic burden.

Major finding: Migraine patients cycling through more than two preventive migraine medications (PMMs) had an increased financial burden, compared with patients that received their initial medication class. “Mean all-cause total direct costs, including prescription costs, were significantly higher in PMM2 ($13,429) and PMM3 ($18,394) subgroups versus the persistent subgroup ($11,941),” noted the investigators

Study details: This was a retrospective observational study of 55,402 adult patients with migraine beginning their first PMM: antidepressants, antiepileptics, beta blockers, or neurotoxins. Patients had to have continuous medical and prescription enrollment for 12 months to be included in the study.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company funded and designed the study. All study investigators reported being employees and stockholders of Eli Lily and Company.

Citation: Ford JH, et al. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019 Jan;25(1):46-59. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.18058.

Key clinical point: Patients that cycle through migraine preventive medications have a higher economic burden.

Major finding: Migraine patients cycling through more than two preventive migraine medications (PMMs) had an increased financial burden, compared with patients that received their initial medication class. “Mean all-cause total direct costs, including prescription costs, were significantly higher in PMM2 ($13,429) and PMM3 ($18,394) subgroups versus the persistent subgroup ($11,941),” noted the investigators

Study details: This was a retrospective observational study of 55,402 adult patients with migraine beginning their first PMM: antidepressants, antiepileptics, beta blockers, or neurotoxins. Patients had to have continuous medical and prescription enrollment for 12 months to be included in the study.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company funded and designed the study. All study investigators reported being employees and stockholders of Eli Lily and Company.

Citation: Ford JH, et al. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019 Jan;25(1):46-59. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.18058.