User login
PCOS associated with shorter lifespan
CHICAGO –
In the study, involving nearly 10,000 women with PCOS and matched controls from Finland, women with PCOS died on average a year earlier than their age-matched counterparts, primarily from diseases of the circulatory system, cancer, and diabetes.
PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-age women, of whom about 50%-70% also have obesity.
“I think we need to acknowledge that this is a health burden and not just a reproductive problem. In many cases we deal with the reproductive problem, and then these women are left alone. … So I think the message is we need to look beyond the reproductive outcomes, which are … really good. We can manage that,” said Terhi T. Piltonen, MD, PhD, during a press briefing held June 15 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
“I think the difficult part is [managing] the lifelong health for these women and supporting them to achieve the best health they can get. We need a multidisciplinary effort and to put more resources into the research,” added Dr. Piltonen, professor in the departments of ob.gyn. and reproductive endocrinology at the University of Oulu, Finland.
Indeed, Punith Kempegowda, MD, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) observed: “In our medical schools in the U.K., over 5 years, students get 45 minutes [of education] on PCOS, and they’re expected to learn about it.”
And over the last 20 years, funding for research into the condition has totaled less than a half percent of overall medical funding. “And we’re talking about 10% of all women. …We need to acknowledge it and educate people more. We need more published studies to understand more about it,” he noted.
Asked to comment, Greg Dodell, MD, owner and president of Central Park Endocrinology, New York, said: “PCOS is about a lot more than fertility, and that may not be the goal or on the mind of a woman at the time they start having symptoms of PCOS or get the diagnosis.”
“PCOS is largely a metabolic condition rooted in insulin resistance, and therefore, the potential clinical outcomes, including mortality, are important to recognize.”
Dr. Dodell, who has a special interest in PCOS, advised that, for women with the condition, “focus on reducing insulin resistance with health-promoting behaviors and medications as needed. Data demonstrate that improving fitness, irrespective of a change in weight, can improve metabolic markers.” And, he advised that these women be routinely screened for mental health issues.
He also noted, “PCOS occurs across the size spectrum, but those patients in larger bodies may face weight stigma which has negative health consequences. These patients may avoid going to doctors for routine health screenings, so it is an important issue to continue to address.”
Women with PCOS lose a year of life
The new data come from 9,839 women with PCOS and 70,705 age- and region-matched controls from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care. The group with PCOS had been diagnosed at a mean age of 27 years.
The mean follow-up time was 13.1 years in both groups, during which 1,003 controls and 177 women with PCOS died. The mean age at death was 51.4 years for the PCOS group versus 52.6 years for the control women, a significant difference (P < .001).
Causes of death that were significantly higher among the women with PCOS versus controls after adjustments were cancer (hazard ratio, 1.39), and diseases of the circulatory system (1.68).
In more specific subcategories, after adjustment for education, the women with PCOS had increased mortality from nonischemic diseases, such as hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary embolism, etc. (HR, 2.06), and diabetes (HR, 2.85).
One study limitation was the inability to adjust for body mass index, Dr. Piltonen noted.
Dr. Piltonen, Dr. Kempegowda, and Dr. Dodell have no disclosures.
CHICAGO –
In the study, involving nearly 10,000 women with PCOS and matched controls from Finland, women with PCOS died on average a year earlier than their age-matched counterparts, primarily from diseases of the circulatory system, cancer, and diabetes.
PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-age women, of whom about 50%-70% also have obesity.
“I think we need to acknowledge that this is a health burden and not just a reproductive problem. In many cases we deal with the reproductive problem, and then these women are left alone. … So I think the message is we need to look beyond the reproductive outcomes, which are … really good. We can manage that,” said Terhi T. Piltonen, MD, PhD, during a press briefing held June 15 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
“I think the difficult part is [managing] the lifelong health for these women and supporting them to achieve the best health they can get. We need a multidisciplinary effort and to put more resources into the research,” added Dr. Piltonen, professor in the departments of ob.gyn. and reproductive endocrinology at the University of Oulu, Finland.
Indeed, Punith Kempegowda, MD, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) observed: “In our medical schools in the U.K., over 5 years, students get 45 minutes [of education] on PCOS, and they’re expected to learn about it.”
And over the last 20 years, funding for research into the condition has totaled less than a half percent of overall medical funding. “And we’re talking about 10% of all women. …We need to acknowledge it and educate people more. We need more published studies to understand more about it,” he noted.
Asked to comment, Greg Dodell, MD, owner and president of Central Park Endocrinology, New York, said: “PCOS is about a lot more than fertility, and that may not be the goal or on the mind of a woman at the time they start having symptoms of PCOS or get the diagnosis.”
“PCOS is largely a metabolic condition rooted in insulin resistance, and therefore, the potential clinical outcomes, including mortality, are important to recognize.”
Dr. Dodell, who has a special interest in PCOS, advised that, for women with the condition, “focus on reducing insulin resistance with health-promoting behaviors and medications as needed. Data demonstrate that improving fitness, irrespective of a change in weight, can improve metabolic markers.” And, he advised that these women be routinely screened for mental health issues.
He also noted, “PCOS occurs across the size spectrum, but those patients in larger bodies may face weight stigma which has negative health consequences. These patients may avoid going to doctors for routine health screenings, so it is an important issue to continue to address.”
Women with PCOS lose a year of life
The new data come from 9,839 women with PCOS and 70,705 age- and region-matched controls from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care. The group with PCOS had been diagnosed at a mean age of 27 years.
The mean follow-up time was 13.1 years in both groups, during which 1,003 controls and 177 women with PCOS died. The mean age at death was 51.4 years for the PCOS group versus 52.6 years for the control women, a significant difference (P < .001).
Causes of death that were significantly higher among the women with PCOS versus controls after adjustments were cancer (hazard ratio, 1.39), and diseases of the circulatory system (1.68).
In more specific subcategories, after adjustment for education, the women with PCOS had increased mortality from nonischemic diseases, such as hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary embolism, etc. (HR, 2.06), and diabetes (HR, 2.85).
One study limitation was the inability to adjust for body mass index, Dr. Piltonen noted.
Dr. Piltonen, Dr. Kempegowda, and Dr. Dodell have no disclosures.
CHICAGO –
In the study, involving nearly 10,000 women with PCOS and matched controls from Finland, women with PCOS died on average a year earlier than their age-matched counterparts, primarily from diseases of the circulatory system, cancer, and diabetes.
PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-age women, of whom about 50%-70% also have obesity.
“I think we need to acknowledge that this is a health burden and not just a reproductive problem. In many cases we deal with the reproductive problem, and then these women are left alone. … So I think the message is we need to look beyond the reproductive outcomes, which are … really good. We can manage that,” said Terhi T. Piltonen, MD, PhD, during a press briefing held June 15 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
“I think the difficult part is [managing] the lifelong health for these women and supporting them to achieve the best health they can get. We need a multidisciplinary effort and to put more resources into the research,” added Dr. Piltonen, professor in the departments of ob.gyn. and reproductive endocrinology at the University of Oulu, Finland.
Indeed, Punith Kempegowda, MD, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) observed: “In our medical schools in the U.K., over 5 years, students get 45 minutes [of education] on PCOS, and they’re expected to learn about it.”
And over the last 20 years, funding for research into the condition has totaled less than a half percent of overall medical funding. “And we’re talking about 10% of all women. …We need to acknowledge it and educate people more. We need more published studies to understand more about it,” he noted.
Asked to comment, Greg Dodell, MD, owner and president of Central Park Endocrinology, New York, said: “PCOS is about a lot more than fertility, and that may not be the goal or on the mind of a woman at the time they start having symptoms of PCOS or get the diagnosis.”
“PCOS is largely a metabolic condition rooted in insulin resistance, and therefore, the potential clinical outcomes, including mortality, are important to recognize.”
Dr. Dodell, who has a special interest in PCOS, advised that, for women with the condition, “focus on reducing insulin resistance with health-promoting behaviors and medications as needed. Data demonstrate that improving fitness, irrespective of a change in weight, can improve metabolic markers.” And, he advised that these women be routinely screened for mental health issues.
He also noted, “PCOS occurs across the size spectrum, but those patients in larger bodies may face weight stigma which has negative health consequences. These patients may avoid going to doctors for routine health screenings, so it is an important issue to continue to address.”
Women with PCOS lose a year of life
The new data come from 9,839 women with PCOS and 70,705 age- and region-matched controls from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care. The group with PCOS had been diagnosed at a mean age of 27 years.
The mean follow-up time was 13.1 years in both groups, during which 1,003 controls and 177 women with PCOS died. The mean age at death was 51.4 years for the PCOS group versus 52.6 years for the control women, a significant difference (P < .001).
Causes of death that were significantly higher among the women with PCOS versus controls after adjustments were cancer (hazard ratio, 1.39), and diseases of the circulatory system (1.68).
In more specific subcategories, after adjustment for education, the women with PCOS had increased mortality from nonischemic diseases, such as hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary embolism, etc. (HR, 2.06), and diabetes (HR, 2.85).
One study limitation was the inability to adjust for body mass index, Dr. Piltonen noted.
Dr. Piltonen, Dr. Kempegowda, and Dr. Dodell have no disclosures.
AT ENDO 2023
Poor sleep tied to increased injury from falls, motor vehicle accidents
Confirming the importance of sleep health, new research shows that short and disrupted sleep increases the risk of fall-related and motor vehicle–related injury among U.S. adults.
Among the study’s key findings – adults who get 4 hours or less nightly and those who have trouble staying asleep are significantly more likely to be injured than peers who sleep the recommended 7-8 hours and those who never have trouble staying asleep.
The findings were presented at SLEEP 2023: 37th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
‘Stark differences’
In 2020, 55.4 million (roughly 1 in 6) Americans sought medical attention for nonfatal, preventable injuries.
“Poor sleep has been identified as a risk factor for preventable injuries,” study investigator Clarence Locklear, MA, who is a PhD student with the Center for Translational Sleep and Circadian Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization.
For the study, the researchers examined associations between different types of sleep problems and different types of injuries utilizing data on 31,568 adults who participated in the 2020 National Health Interview Survey.
They investigated three types of injuries (fall-related, sports-related, and motor vehicle–related) and four domains of past-month sleep health: (1) sleep quantity: very short (≤ 4 hours), short (5-6 hours), healthy (7-8 hours), or long (≥ 9 hours); (2) sleep quality: trouble falling asleep and trouble staying asleep; (3) feeling well rested upon waking up; and (4) sleep medications.
Overall, 9% of adults suffered an injury in the prior 3 months. Among injured adults, 47% had a fall-related injury, 29% had a sports-related injury, and 6% had a motor vehicle–related injury.
Adults with very short sleep, those with short sleep, and those with long sleep were 37%, 15%, and 22% more likely to be injured, respectively, than adults with healthy sleep (P < .05), the researchers found.
Those who had trouble staying asleep were 36% more likely to be injured than peers who never had trouble staying asleep (P < .01).
Adults who never woke up feeling rested and those who woke up feeling rested only on some days were 49% and 36% more likely to be injured (P < .01), respectively, than peers who always felt rested on waking.
Individuals who on some days took medication for sleep were 24% (P < .05) more likely to suffer an injury and those who took sleep medication every day were 36% (P < .001) more likely to get injured than those who never took sleep medication.
“These are pretty stark differences,” said Mr. Locklear.
Regarding injury type, those who had trouble staying asleep some days were 22% (P < .05) more likely to have a fall-related injury and were 3.5 times (P < .01) more likely to experience a motor vehicle–related injury than peers who didn’t have trouble staying asleep.
People who took sleep medication most days were 2.4 times more likely to suffer a fall than those who never took sleep medication. In addition, adults who reported long sleep (9+ hours nightly) were 43% less likely to have sports-related injuries (P < .05) than healthy sleepers (7-8 hours).
Quantity and quality matter
Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, said the results are “not particularly surprising but are consistent with other data.”
Dr. Breus said, “Many people don’t realize it’s not just sleep deprivation, in terms of minutes, that’s a problem. Our quality of sleep also matters. You can get 8 hours of crappy sleep and still injure yourself playing sports or get into a car accident due to poor reaction time.”
As previously reported by this news organization, the American Heart Association recently added healthy sleep as an essential component of heart health. “It’s nice to see them recognize that sleep is a big deal, and we’ve got the data to back it up,” said Dr. Breus.
He noted that people often ask him what’s the one thing they can do to improve sleep.
“The answer is always, wake up at the same time every single day, including the weekend, because your circadian system realigns every single morning.
“I solve maybe 50%-60% of people’s problems by just telling them to just wake up at the same time 7 days a week. I personally have been doing it for a very long time,” said Dr. Breus.
The study was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Mr. Locklear and Dr. Breus have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Confirming the importance of sleep health, new research shows that short and disrupted sleep increases the risk of fall-related and motor vehicle–related injury among U.S. adults.
Among the study’s key findings – adults who get 4 hours or less nightly and those who have trouble staying asleep are significantly more likely to be injured than peers who sleep the recommended 7-8 hours and those who never have trouble staying asleep.
The findings were presented at SLEEP 2023: 37th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
‘Stark differences’
In 2020, 55.4 million (roughly 1 in 6) Americans sought medical attention for nonfatal, preventable injuries.
“Poor sleep has been identified as a risk factor for preventable injuries,” study investigator Clarence Locklear, MA, who is a PhD student with the Center for Translational Sleep and Circadian Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization.
For the study, the researchers examined associations between different types of sleep problems and different types of injuries utilizing data on 31,568 adults who participated in the 2020 National Health Interview Survey.
They investigated three types of injuries (fall-related, sports-related, and motor vehicle–related) and four domains of past-month sleep health: (1) sleep quantity: very short (≤ 4 hours), short (5-6 hours), healthy (7-8 hours), or long (≥ 9 hours); (2) sleep quality: trouble falling asleep and trouble staying asleep; (3) feeling well rested upon waking up; and (4) sleep medications.
Overall, 9% of adults suffered an injury in the prior 3 months. Among injured adults, 47% had a fall-related injury, 29% had a sports-related injury, and 6% had a motor vehicle–related injury.
Adults with very short sleep, those with short sleep, and those with long sleep were 37%, 15%, and 22% more likely to be injured, respectively, than adults with healthy sleep (P < .05), the researchers found.
Those who had trouble staying asleep were 36% more likely to be injured than peers who never had trouble staying asleep (P < .01).
Adults who never woke up feeling rested and those who woke up feeling rested only on some days were 49% and 36% more likely to be injured (P < .01), respectively, than peers who always felt rested on waking.
Individuals who on some days took medication for sleep were 24% (P < .05) more likely to suffer an injury and those who took sleep medication every day were 36% (P < .001) more likely to get injured than those who never took sleep medication.
“These are pretty stark differences,” said Mr. Locklear.
Regarding injury type, those who had trouble staying asleep some days were 22% (P < .05) more likely to have a fall-related injury and were 3.5 times (P < .01) more likely to experience a motor vehicle–related injury than peers who didn’t have trouble staying asleep.
People who took sleep medication most days were 2.4 times more likely to suffer a fall than those who never took sleep medication. In addition, adults who reported long sleep (9+ hours nightly) were 43% less likely to have sports-related injuries (P < .05) than healthy sleepers (7-8 hours).
Quantity and quality matter
Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, said the results are “not particularly surprising but are consistent with other data.”
Dr. Breus said, “Many people don’t realize it’s not just sleep deprivation, in terms of minutes, that’s a problem. Our quality of sleep also matters. You can get 8 hours of crappy sleep and still injure yourself playing sports or get into a car accident due to poor reaction time.”
As previously reported by this news organization, the American Heart Association recently added healthy sleep as an essential component of heart health. “It’s nice to see them recognize that sleep is a big deal, and we’ve got the data to back it up,” said Dr. Breus.
He noted that people often ask him what’s the one thing they can do to improve sleep.
“The answer is always, wake up at the same time every single day, including the weekend, because your circadian system realigns every single morning.
“I solve maybe 50%-60% of people’s problems by just telling them to just wake up at the same time 7 days a week. I personally have been doing it for a very long time,” said Dr. Breus.
The study was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Mr. Locklear and Dr. Breus have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Confirming the importance of sleep health, new research shows that short and disrupted sleep increases the risk of fall-related and motor vehicle–related injury among U.S. adults.
Among the study’s key findings – adults who get 4 hours or less nightly and those who have trouble staying asleep are significantly more likely to be injured than peers who sleep the recommended 7-8 hours and those who never have trouble staying asleep.
The findings were presented at SLEEP 2023: 37th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
‘Stark differences’
In 2020, 55.4 million (roughly 1 in 6) Americans sought medical attention for nonfatal, preventable injuries.
“Poor sleep has been identified as a risk factor for preventable injuries,” study investigator Clarence Locklear, MA, who is a PhD student with the Center for Translational Sleep and Circadian Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization.
For the study, the researchers examined associations between different types of sleep problems and different types of injuries utilizing data on 31,568 adults who participated in the 2020 National Health Interview Survey.
They investigated three types of injuries (fall-related, sports-related, and motor vehicle–related) and four domains of past-month sleep health: (1) sleep quantity: very short (≤ 4 hours), short (5-6 hours), healthy (7-8 hours), or long (≥ 9 hours); (2) sleep quality: trouble falling asleep and trouble staying asleep; (3) feeling well rested upon waking up; and (4) sleep medications.
Overall, 9% of adults suffered an injury in the prior 3 months. Among injured adults, 47% had a fall-related injury, 29% had a sports-related injury, and 6% had a motor vehicle–related injury.
Adults with very short sleep, those with short sleep, and those with long sleep were 37%, 15%, and 22% more likely to be injured, respectively, than adults with healthy sleep (P < .05), the researchers found.
Those who had trouble staying asleep were 36% more likely to be injured than peers who never had trouble staying asleep (P < .01).
Adults who never woke up feeling rested and those who woke up feeling rested only on some days were 49% and 36% more likely to be injured (P < .01), respectively, than peers who always felt rested on waking.
Individuals who on some days took medication for sleep were 24% (P < .05) more likely to suffer an injury and those who took sleep medication every day were 36% (P < .001) more likely to get injured than those who never took sleep medication.
“These are pretty stark differences,” said Mr. Locklear.
Regarding injury type, those who had trouble staying asleep some days were 22% (P < .05) more likely to have a fall-related injury and were 3.5 times (P < .01) more likely to experience a motor vehicle–related injury than peers who didn’t have trouble staying asleep.
People who took sleep medication most days were 2.4 times more likely to suffer a fall than those who never took sleep medication. In addition, adults who reported long sleep (9+ hours nightly) were 43% less likely to have sports-related injuries (P < .05) than healthy sleepers (7-8 hours).
Quantity and quality matter
Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, said the results are “not particularly surprising but are consistent with other data.”
Dr. Breus said, “Many people don’t realize it’s not just sleep deprivation, in terms of minutes, that’s a problem. Our quality of sleep also matters. You can get 8 hours of crappy sleep and still injure yourself playing sports or get into a car accident due to poor reaction time.”
As previously reported by this news organization, the American Heart Association recently added healthy sleep as an essential component of heart health. “It’s nice to see them recognize that sleep is a big deal, and we’ve got the data to back it up,” said Dr. Breus.
He noted that people often ask him what’s the one thing they can do to improve sleep.
“The answer is always, wake up at the same time every single day, including the weekend, because your circadian system realigns every single morning.
“I solve maybe 50%-60% of people’s problems by just telling them to just wake up at the same time 7 days a week. I personally have been doing it for a very long time,” said Dr. Breus.
The study was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Mr. Locklear and Dr. Breus have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
International rights group calls out United States for allowing hospitals to push millions into debt
Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.
In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.
“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.
The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”
Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.
About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.
The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”
Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.
Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.
At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.
Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.
“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.
Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.
The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:
- Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
- The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
- The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.
“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.
In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.
“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.
The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”
Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.
About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.
The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”
Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.
Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.
At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.
Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.
“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.
Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.
The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:
- Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
- The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
- The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.
“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.
In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.
“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.
The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”
Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.
About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.
The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”
Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.
Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.
At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.
Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.
“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.
Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.
The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:
- Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
- The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
- The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.
“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Big trial reassures on heart safety of testosterone in men
CHICAGO – , long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.
Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.
There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.
In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.
And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.
The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.
The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.
Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.
“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency
Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.
“Until now, we’ve had to say well, there might be a risk of strokes and heart attacks. This study does a lot to say that’s not a serious risk, in the first few years anyway, of testosterone therapy. We still need long-term follow-up in these patients, or others, to see what the long-term risks are, but it’s really reassuring,” added Dr. Anawalt, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt said the TRAVERSE trial in men is similar in many ways to the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). “[TRAVERSE] is not as big as [WHI], but it’s framed in a similar way to ask those safety questions and to weigh the risk and benefit,” Dr. Anawalt explained.
However, Dr. Anawalt stressed that the TRAVERSE safety data apply only to men with documented testosterone deficiency.
“It’s important to emphasize that this is a study of men with bona fide testosterone deficiency and symptoms. It doesn’t give carte blanche to prescribe to men with normal testosterone concentrations. It doesn’t tell us about the safety of that,” he noted.
Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation
TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.
The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.
Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.
Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).
There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).
“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.
Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’
Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”
He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series, had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.
Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”
At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.
“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.
Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk
The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.
“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.
The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.
Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.
“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.
Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”
Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.
“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”
The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 6/19/23.
CHICAGO – , long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.
Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.
There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.
In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.
And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.
The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.
The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.
Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.
“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency
Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.
“Until now, we’ve had to say well, there might be a risk of strokes and heart attacks. This study does a lot to say that’s not a serious risk, in the first few years anyway, of testosterone therapy. We still need long-term follow-up in these patients, or others, to see what the long-term risks are, but it’s really reassuring,” added Dr. Anawalt, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt said the TRAVERSE trial in men is similar in many ways to the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). “[TRAVERSE] is not as big as [WHI], but it’s framed in a similar way to ask those safety questions and to weigh the risk and benefit,” Dr. Anawalt explained.
However, Dr. Anawalt stressed that the TRAVERSE safety data apply only to men with documented testosterone deficiency.
“It’s important to emphasize that this is a study of men with bona fide testosterone deficiency and symptoms. It doesn’t give carte blanche to prescribe to men with normal testosterone concentrations. It doesn’t tell us about the safety of that,” he noted.
Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation
TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.
The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.
Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.
Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).
There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).
“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.
Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’
Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”
He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series, had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.
Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”
At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.
“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.
Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk
The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.
“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.
The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.
Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.
“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.
Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”
Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.
“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”
The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 6/19/23.
CHICAGO – , long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.
Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.
There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.
In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.
And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.
The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.
The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.
Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.
“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency
Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.
“Until now, we’ve had to say well, there might be a risk of strokes and heart attacks. This study does a lot to say that’s not a serious risk, in the first few years anyway, of testosterone therapy. We still need long-term follow-up in these patients, or others, to see what the long-term risks are, but it’s really reassuring,” added Dr. Anawalt, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt said the TRAVERSE trial in men is similar in many ways to the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). “[TRAVERSE] is not as big as [WHI], but it’s framed in a similar way to ask those safety questions and to weigh the risk and benefit,” Dr. Anawalt explained.
However, Dr. Anawalt stressed that the TRAVERSE safety data apply only to men with documented testosterone deficiency.
“It’s important to emphasize that this is a study of men with bona fide testosterone deficiency and symptoms. It doesn’t give carte blanche to prescribe to men with normal testosterone concentrations. It doesn’t tell us about the safety of that,” he noted.
Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation
TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.
The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.
Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.
Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).
There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).
“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.
Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’
Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”
He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series, had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.
Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”
At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.
“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.
Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk
The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.
“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.
The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.
Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.
“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.
Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”
Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.
“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”
The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 6/19/23.
AT ENDO 2023
After Yusimry’s steep discount, little clarity on future adalimumab biosimilar pricing
Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira, enjoyed a long run as one of the world’s best-selling medicines. But its 20-year, competition-free period has ended, and despite its best efforts to delay their arrival, drug manufacturer AbbVie now faces increasing competition from biosimilars entering the marketplace.
But one biosimilar about to be launched may be something of a game changer. Coherus BioSciences has announced plans to market its biosimilar Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh) at a cost of $995 for two autoinjectors. This represents an approximate 85% discount over Humira’s sale list price of $6922.
This price, however, is slated to plunge even further as Coherus has also revealed that it will work with the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) to offer an even lower price. When Yusimry launches in July, it will sell for about $579 for two autoinjectors, making it the lowest-priced adalimumab biosimilar on the market.
“Coherus and Cost Plus Drug Company share a common mission, to increase access to high-quality medicine for patients at an affordable price,” said Dennis Lanfear, MBA, president, CEO and chairman of Coherus. “Mark Cuban and his team offer innovative solutions to health care problems, and Coherus is also a highly innovative company focused on unmet patient needs.”
He noted that, with adalimumab biosimilar pricing, this translates to a low list price approach. “We are pleased that Yusimry will be a part of that, as the first biologic they carry,” Mr. Lanfear said.
MCCPDC prices are based on the cost of ingredients and manufacturing plus 15% margin, a $3 pharmacy dispensing fee, and a $5 shipping fee. The company has expanded its inventory from 100 generics to more than 350 medications since it launched in January 2022. While MCCPDC is primarily directed to people who are paying cash for drugs, it does take insurance from select plans. And even for people who are covered by other insurers, the cost of drugs from Mr. Cuban’s company may be less than their out-of-pocket costs if they did go through their payer.
The low pricing of Yusimry is welcome, said Marcus Snow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, but he pointed out that it is still a very expensive drug. “For patients who can’t afford Humira due to poor insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket costs, it is a welcome option. But it’s also unclear how many patients who lack adequate health insurance coverage can afford to pay $579 a month out of their own pockets.”
The biosimilars are coming
By early December 2022, the Food and Drug Administration had approved seven Humira biosimilars, and Amgen launched the first biosimilar to come on the market, Amjevita, soon afterward. By July 2023, half a dozen more are expected to enter the marketplace, said Steven Horvitz, managing director of EMC Analytics Group, a pharmaceutical research firm.
Mr. Horvitz agrees that the system is out of control, but it is unclear how much of an effect the low price tag on the Coherus product will have. “Some insurers may say, ‘we want the lowest price, and we don’t care about rebates,’ and will go with it,” he said. “PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are all about economics, so we have to see how many of their major clients will ask for the lowest price.”
Amgen has more or less followed the status quo on pricing for its biosimilar, but with a twist. It›s being offered at two different prices: $85,494 a year, which is only a 5% discount from Humira’s list price, or at $40,497 a year, a 55% discount. However, to date, the lower price has generally not been granted favorable formulary placement by PBMs. The plans that adopt the higher-priced biosimilar will get bigger rebates, but patients with coinsurance and deductibles will pay more out of pocket.
It is yet unknown how the pricing on Yusimry will affect the biosimilars ready to launch. “Will it give them pause for thought or not make any difference?” Mr. Horvitz said. “The companies do not reveal their pricing before the fact, so we have to wait and see.”
Large PBMs have not jumped at the opportunity to offer the Coherus biosimilar, but SmithRx, which bills itself as “next-generation pharmacy benefits management,” announced that it will offer Yusimry to its members at a discount of more than 90%.
“Unlike traditional PBMs, SmithRx prioritizes transparency and up-front cost savings. Humira is often an employer’s top drug expense so offering a low-cost alternative will have significant impact,” Jake Frenz, CEO and founder of SmithRx, said in a statement. “We’re excited to work with Cost Plus Drugs to bring this biosimilar to our members – and significantly reduce costs for them and their employers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira, enjoyed a long run as one of the world’s best-selling medicines. But its 20-year, competition-free period has ended, and despite its best efforts to delay their arrival, drug manufacturer AbbVie now faces increasing competition from biosimilars entering the marketplace.
But one biosimilar about to be launched may be something of a game changer. Coherus BioSciences has announced plans to market its biosimilar Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh) at a cost of $995 for two autoinjectors. This represents an approximate 85% discount over Humira’s sale list price of $6922.
This price, however, is slated to plunge even further as Coherus has also revealed that it will work with the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) to offer an even lower price. When Yusimry launches in July, it will sell for about $579 for two autoinjectors, making it the lowest-priced adalimumab biosimilar on the market.
“Coherus and Cost Plus Drug Company share a common mission, to increase access to high-quality medicine for patients at an affordable price,” said Dennis Lanfear, MBA, president, CEO and chairman of Coherus. “Mark Cuban and his team offer innovative solutions to health care problems, and Coherus is also a highly innovative company focused on unmet patient needs.”
He noted that, with adalimumab biosimilar pricing, this translates to a low list price approach. “We are pleased that Yusimry will be a part of that, as the first biologic they carry,” Mr. Lanfear said.
MCCPDC prices are based on the cost of ingredients and manufacturing plus 15% margin, a $3 pharmacy dispensing fee, and a $5 shipping fee. The company has expanded its inventory from 100 generics to more than 350 medications since it launched in January 2022. While MCCPDC is primarily directed to people who are paying cash for drugs, it does take insurance from select plans. And even for people who are covered by other insurers, the cost of drugs from Mr. Cuban’s company may be less than their out-of-pocket costs if they did go through their payer.
The low pricing of Yusimry is welcome, said Marcus Snow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, but he pointed out that it is still a very expensive drug. “For patients who can’t afford Humira due to poor insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket costs, it is a welcome option. But it’s also unclear how many patients who lack adequate health insurance coverage can afford to pay $579 a month out of their own pockets.”
The biosimilars are coming
By early December 2022, the Food and Drug Administration had approved seven Humira biosimilars, and Amgen launched the first biosimilar to come on the market, Amjevita, soon afterward. By July 2023, half a dozen more are expected to enter the marketplace, said Steven Horvitz, managing director of EMC Analytics Group, a pharmaceutical research firm.
Mr. Horvitz agrees that the system is out of control, but it is unclear how much of an effect the low price tag on the Coherus product will have. “Some insurers may say, ‘we want the lowest price, and we don’t care about rebates,’ and will go with it,” he said. “PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are all about economics, so we have to see how many of their major clients will ask for the lowest price.”
Amgen has more or less followed the status quo on pricing for its biosimilar, but with a twist. It›s being offered at two different prices: $85,494 a year, which is only a 5% discount from Humira’s list price, or at $40,497 a year, a 55% discount. However, to date, the lower price has generally not been granted favorable formulary placement by PBMs. The plans that adopt the higher-priced biosimilar will get bigger rebates, but patients with coinsurance and deductibles will pay more out of pocket.
It is yet unknown how the pricing on Yusimry will affect the biosimilars ready to launch. “Will it give them pause for thought or not make any difference?” Mr. Horvitz said. “The companies do not reveal their pricing before the fact, so we have to wait and see.”
Large PBMs have not jumped at the opportunity to offer the Coherus biosimilar, but SmithRx, which bills itself as “next-generation pharmacy benefits management,” announced that it will offer Yusimry to its members at a discount of more than 90%.
“Unlike traditional PBMs, SmithRx prioritizes transparency and up-front cost savings. Humira is often an employer’s top drug expense so offering a low-cost alternative will have significant impact,” Jake Frenz, CEO and founder of SmithRx, said in a statement. “We’re excited to work with Cost Plus Drugs to bring this biosimilar to our members – and significantly reduce costs for them and their employers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira, enjoyed a long run as one of the world’s best-selling medicines. But its 20-year, competition-free period has ended, and despite its best efforts to delay their arrival, drug manufacturer AbbVie now faces increasing competition from biosimilars entering the marketplace.
But one biosimilar about to be launched may be something of a game changer. Coherus BioSciences has announced plans to market its biosimilar Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh) at a cost of $995 for two autoinjectors. This represents an approximate 85% discount over Humira’s sale list price of $6922.
This price, however, is slated to plunge even further as Coherus has also revealed that it will work with the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) to offer an even lower price. When Yusimry launches in July, it will sell for about $579 for two autoinjectors, making it the lowest-priced adalimumab biosimilar on the market.
“Coherus and Cost Plus Drug Company share a common mission, to increase access to high-quality medicine for patients at an affordable price,” said Dennis Lanfear, MBA, president, CEO and chairman of Coherus. “Mark Cuban and his team offer innovative solutions to health care problems, and Coherus is also a highly innovative company focused on unmet patient needs.”
He noted that, with adalimumab biosimilar pricing, this translates to a low list price approach. “We are pleased that Yusimry will be a part of that, as the first biologic they carry,” Mr. Lanfear said.
MCCPDC prices are based on the cost of ingredients and manufacturing plus 15% margin, a $3 pharmacy dispensing fee, and a $5 shipping fee. The company has expanded its inventory from 100 generics to more than 350 medications since it launched in January 2022. While MCCPDC is primarily directed to people who are paying cash for drugs, it does take insurance from select plans. And even for people who are covered by other insurers, the cost of drugs from Mr. Cuban’s company may be less than their out-of-pocket costs if they did go through their payer.
The low pricing of Yusimry is welcome, said Marcus Snow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, but he pointed out that it is still a very expensive drug. “For patients who can’t afford Humira due to poor insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket costs, it is a welcome option. But it’s also unclear how many patients who lack adequate health insurance coverage can afford to pay $579 a month out of their own pockets.”
The biosimilars are coming
By early December 2022, the Food and Drug Administration had approved seven Humira biosimilars, and Amgen launched the first biosimilar to come on the market, Amjevita, soon afterward. By July 2023, half a dozen more are expected to enter the marketplace, said Steven Horvitz, managing director of EMC Analytics Group, a pharmaceutical research firm.
Mr. Horvitz agrees that the system is out of control, but it is unclear how much of an effect the low price tag on the Coherus product will have. “Some insurers may say, ‘we want the lowest price, and we don’t care about rebates,’ and will go with it,” he said. “PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are all about economics, so we have to see how many of their major clients will ask for the lowest price.”
Amgen has more or less followed the status quo on pricing for its biosimilar, but with a twist. It›s being offered at two different prices: $85,494 a year, which is only a 5% discount from Humira’s list price, or at $40,497 a year, a 55% discount. However, to date, the lower price has generally not been granted favorable formulary placement by PBMs. The plans that adopt the higher-priced biosimilar will get bigger rebates, but patients with coinsurance and deductibles will pay more out of pocket.
It is yet unknown how the pricing on Yusimry will affect the biosimilars ready to launch. “Will it give them pause for thought or not make any difference?” Mr. Horvitz said. “The companies do not reveal their pricing before the fact, so we have to wait and see.”
Large PBMs have not jumped at the opportunity to offer the Coherus biosimilar, but SmithRx, which bills itself as “next-generation pharmacy benefits management,” announced that it will offer Yusimry to its members at a discount of more than 90%.
“Unlike traditional PBMs, SmithRx prioritizes transparency and up-front cost savings. Humira is often an employer’s top drug expense so offering a low-cost alternative will have significant impact,” Jake Frenz, CEO and founder of SmithRx, said in a statement. “We’re excited to work with Cost Plus Drugs to bring this biosimilar to our members – and significantly reduce costs for them and their employers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves glofitamab for DLBCL
The indication is for use in adult patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified or with LBCL arising from follicular lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.
The product is a T cell–engaging bispecific antibody developed by Genentech, which has a similar product, mosunetuzumab-axgb (Lunsumio), for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. Lunsumio was approved in December 2022.
These drugs could be considered a first choice in the setting of third-line therapy, suggests an expert writing recently in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Nancy Bartlett, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University in St. Louis, is the author of an editorial that accompanied the publication of results with glofitamab in the pivotal trial that led to its approval.
“Bispecific agents will be an excellent option for the 60% of patients in whom second-line CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T-cell therapy fails,” she wrote in her editorial.
Dr. Bartlett suggests that these agents may be preferred over CAR T cells. “If longer follow-up confirms that the majority of complete remissions with bispecific agents are durable, on the basis of the advantages of availability (including in the community setting) and more favorable immediate and late toxic-effect profiles, bispecific agents could be considered as the initial choice. ... CAR T-cell therapy could be held in reserve for patients who do not have a complete response or who have a relapse after a complete response.”
Most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
DLBCL is the most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the United States, the company noted in a press release. While many people with DLBCL are responsive to treatment, the majority of those who experience relapse or whose condition is refractory to subsequent treatments have poor outcomes.
“Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma may experience rapid progression of their cancer and often urgently need an effective treatment option that can be administered without delay,” commented Krish Patel, MD, director of the lymphoma program at the Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, who is an investigator on the clinical trial that led to the product’s approval. He said that the results from trials suggest that glofitamab gives patients “a chance for complete remission with a fixed-duration immunotherapy and that such remissions can potentially be sustained after the end of their treatment.”
The accelerated approval is based on response rate and durability of response results from the phase 1/2 NP30179 study.
Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.
This trial involved 132 patients with DLBCL who experienced relapse or whose condition was refractory to prior therapies. About one-third of patients (30%) had received prior CAR T-cell therapy. Additionally, for 83% of patients, the condition was refractory to their most recent therapy.
Glofitamab was given to all patients as a fixed course for 8.5 months.
More than half (56%) achieved an overall response, and 43% achieved a complete response. Over two-thirds (68.5%) of those who responded continued to respond for at least 9 months The median duration of response was 1.5 years.
The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 70%), which may be serious or life-threatening; musculoskeletal pain (21%); fatigue (20%); and rash (20%). CRS was generally of low grade (52% of patients experienced grade 1 CRS, and 14% experienced grade 2).
Results from the NP30179 trial were published in December 2022.
The complete response rates seen with glofitamab rivals the durable complete response that has been observed with CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Bartlett noted in the accompanying editorial. “Although these results are promising, it is still too early to estimate the curative potential of glofitamab.”
The indication is for use in adult patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified or with LBCL arising from follicular lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.
The product is a T cell–engaging bispecific antibody developed by Genentech, which has a similar product, mosunetuzumab-axgb (Lunsumio), for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. Lunsumio was approved in December 2022.
These drugs could be considered a first choice in the setting of third-line therapy, suggests an expert writing recently in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Nancy Bartlett, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University in St. Louis, is the author of an editorial that accompanied the publication of results with glofitamab in the pivotal trial that led to its approval.
“Bispecific agents will be an excellent option for the 60% of patients in whom second-line CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T-cell therapy fails,” she wrote in her editorial.
Dr. Bartlett suggests that these agents may be preferred over CAR T cells. “If longer follow-up confirms that the majority of complete remissions with bispecific agents are durable, on the basis of the advantages of availability (including in the community setting) and more favorable immediate and late toxic-effect profiles, bispecific agents could be considered as the initial choice. ... CAR T-cell therapy could be held in reserve for patients who do not have a complete response or who have a relapse after a complete response.”
Most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
DLBCL is the most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the United States, the company noted in a press release. While many people with DLBCL are responsive to treatment, the majority of those who experience relapse or whose condition is refractory to subsequent treatments have poor outcomes.
“Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma may experience rapid progression of their cancer and often urgently need an effective treatment option that can be administered without delay,” commented Krish Patel, MD, director of the lymphoma program at the Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, who is an investigator on the clinical trial that led to the product’s approval. He said that the results from trials suggest that glofitamab gives patients “a chance for complete remission with a fixed-duration immunotherapy and that such remissions can potentially be sustained after the end of their treatment.”
The accelerated approval is based on response rate and durability of response results from the phase 1/2 NP30179 study.
Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.
This trial involved 132 patients with DLBCL who experienced relapse or whose condition was refractory to prior therapies. About one-third of patients (30%) had received prior CAR T-cell therapy. Additionally, for 83% of patients, the condition was refractory to their most recent therapy.
Glofitamab was given to all patients as a fixed course for 8.5 months.
More than half (56%) achieved an overall response, and 43% achieved a complete response. Over two-thirds (68.5%) of those who responded continued to respond for at least 9 months The median duration of response was 1.5 years.
The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 70%), which may be serious or life-threatening; musculoskeletal pain (21%); fatigue (20%); and rash (20%). CRS was generally of low grade (52% of patients experienced grade 1 CRS, and 14% experienced grade 2).
Results from the NP30179 trial were published in December 2022.
The complete response rates seen with glofitamab rivals the durable complete response that has been observed with CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Bartlett noted in the accompanying editorial. “Although these results are promising, it is still too early to estimate the curative potential of glofitamab.”
The indication is for use in adult patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified or with LBCL arising from follicular lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.
The product is a T cell–engaging bispecific antibody developed by Genentech, which has a similar product, mosunetuzumab-axgb (Lunsumio), for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. Lunsumio was approved in December 2022.
These drugs could be considered a first choice in the setting of third-line therapy, suggests an expert writing recently in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Nancy Bartlett, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University in St. Louis, is the author of an editorial that accompanied the publication of results with glofitamab in the pivotal trial that led to its approval.
“Bispecific agents will be an excellent option for the 60% of patients in whom second-line CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T-cell therapy fails,” she wrote in her editorial.
Dr. Bartlett suggests that these agents may be preferred over CAR T cells. “If longer follow-up confirms that the majority of complete remissions with bispecific agents are durable, on the basis of the advantages of availability (including in the community setting) and more favorable immediate and late toxic-effect profiles, bispecific agents could be considered as the initial choice. ... CAR T-cell therapy could be held in reserve for patients who do not have a complete response or who have a relapse after a complete response.”
Most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
DLBCL is the most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the United States, the company noted in a press release. While many people with DLBCL are responsive to treatment, the majority of those who experience relapse or whose condition is refractory to subsequent treatments have poor outcomes.
“Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma may experience rapid progression of their cancer and often urgently need an effective treatment option that can be administered without delay,” commented Krish Patel, MD, director of the lymphoma program at the Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, who is an investigator on the clinical trial that led to the product’s approval. He said that the results from trials suggest that glofitamab gives patients “a chance for complete remission with a fixed-duration immunotherapy and that such remissions can potentially be sustained after the end of their treatment.”
The accelerated approval is based on response rate and durability of response results from the phase 1/2 NP30179 study.
Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.
This trial involved 132 patients with DLBCL who experienced relapse or whose condition was refractory to prior therapies. About one-third of patients (30%) had received prior CAR T-cell therapy. Additionally, for 83% of patients, the condition was refractory to their most recent therapy.
Glofitamab was given to all patients as a fixed course for 8.5 months.
More than half (56%) achieved an overall response, and 43% achieved a complete response. Over two-thirds (68.5%) of those who responded continued to respond for at least 9 months The median duration of response was 1.5 years.
The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 70%), which may be serious or life-threatening; musculoskeletal pain (21%); fatigue (20%); and rash (20%). CRS was generally of low grade (52% of patients experienced grade 1 CRS, and 14% experienced grade 2).
Results from the NP30179 trial were published in December 2022.
The complete response rates seen with glofitamab rivals the durable complete response that has been observed with CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Bartlett noted in the accompanying editorial. “Although these results are promising, it is still too early to estimate the curative potential of glofitamab.”
‘Professional grief’ is a daily reality for oncologists
– but when it is also accompanied by a sense of emotional isolation, it can lead to reduced well-being and burnout.
The issue was discussed at a special session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and several speakers offered solutions.
Laurie Jean Lyckholm, MD, professor, Hematology/Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, polled the audience to ask how they deal with patient-related loss and grief.
The responses showed that 44.4% said they talk with their colleagues, 16.7% said they talk about it with family and friends, but 22.2% said that they simply move on to the next patient.
Dr. Lyckholm noted that there are positive and negative ways of dealing with grief.
One example of a positive way comes from an oncologist who attended one of her talks and shared with her how his practice deals with the issue.
“At the end of every fourth Friday, he closes his community practice office early and all the oncologists, everyone, stays for a while, and they have a list of the people who have died,” Dr. Lyckholm explained. As a group, they go through the list and reminisce about the patients who died, recalling funny incidents or things that person had said.
“I love this idea,” she said. “The most important thing is to commemorate that person.”
Amplified during pandemic
Like many other issues, the problem of how to deal with “professional grief” was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people were unable to see their dying relatives because of the restricted access to sealed-off, dedicated COVID-19 units. One oncologist who had developed a friendly relationship with a patient while treating them for cancer over several years was unable to visit the patient once they were ill with the disease and was left to communicate via an iPad. “It was the only way I could say ‘goodbye’ before she died. ... It still haunts me today, 2 years later,” the clinician recalled.
This anecdote illustrates “disenfranchised grief,” which occurs when an individual experiences a “significant loss and the resultant grief is not openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly mourned,” Dr. Lyckholm explained.
If this goes unrecognized, it can lead to shame, guilt, and organizational mistrust, resulting in reduced well-being and clinician burnout, she warned.
The pandemic also had an impact on clinicians directly. Dr. Lyckholm quoted one nurse practitioner who talked about coming back to a new “lonely normal” when returning to a Veterans Affairs hospital.
“I am still getting used to calling colleagues, and paging colleagues, and realizing that they just aren’t there,” the nurse practitioner said. “They aren’t there because they either left or died. I just didn’t expect that.”
Dr. Lyckholm said, “I don’t think we can ever stop acknowledging COVID, because it just had such a terrible impact on all of us.”
Teamwork intervention
The next speaker also polled the audience. Christopher Ryan Friese, PhD, RN, AOCN, Elizabeth Tone Hosmer Professor of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked the audience what strategy they would prioritize to reduce burnout, from the perspective of the entire cancer care team.
The response indicated that many (43.6%) would like to see team-based grief and bereavement sessions, while 31.1% thought it best to tackle low-value administrative work.
Dr. Friese drew on a teamwork intervention that researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, with support from the National Cancer Institute, implemented to help identify opportunities to improve cancer care delivery services.
It began with a focus group of nurses who were invited to identify practice pain points, then six 2-hour sessions with all members of the clinical team to identify and develop service expectations and commitments across the various roles.
After these sessions, the researchers saw a decrease in missing orders from 30% to 2%, while patient satisfaction increased from 93% to 97% as a result. Interestingly, there was also a reported rise in efficiency, practice quality and safety, and respectful professional behaviors.
The pilot was then rolled out across the whole institution, and Dr. Friese and colleagues also implemented a version of the program at their community medical oncology practice.
They had a huge response from patients and clinicians alike (with participation rates of 90% and 78%, respectively), and the survey results led to changes in workflow and the standardization of communications.
Importantly for Dr. Friese, the clinicians who took part wanted to repeat the survey to evaluate any practice changes, which was not part of the study protocol and had not been envisaged by the researchers.
So they developed a survey for clinicians, using as an inspiration the Choosing Wisely campaign by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation to identify the best treatments to improve patient outcomes and those to deprioritize.
They used the survey on 373 clinicians at the University of Michigan Health System and found that “the number one thing was getting rid of the administrative work” – that it doesn’t have to be done specifically by physicians or other providers and that other people can do it.
The second was time-consuming electronic health record tasks.
Both of these have since been the focus of an elimination and reduction process to give clinicians more time to do what matters most to them and their patients.
“We have the opportunity to do this in a different way,” Dr. Friese said, “and I think it’s a really powerful opportunity.”
“We can retrofit the solution, which is the pizza parties, and the yoga apps, and the T-shirts ... [or] we could actually redesign the work that we’re asking clinicians to do on a daily basis,” he commented.
“We could make the work easier to do so that you have more time with patients and less time with administrative work and have more time to process grief or to celebrate successes,” he concluded.
Tackling burnout
The final speaker, Vicki A. Jackson, MD, MPH, chief of palliative care, Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasized that the recognition of grief by a cancer care provider is “imperative” for physician well-being and pointed out that that interventions to help “do exist,” including ASCO’s SafeHaven collection of physician well-being resources.
Oncology inherently carries with it “threats” to well-being, including uncertainty and doubt, isolation, fears over one’s usefulness, exhaustion, the witnessing of suffering, and moral distress, she noted.
Things that are necessary for well-being, in contrast, include a sense of connection and community, having boundaries between work and personal life, self-awareness, compassion, and empowerment, among others.
Dr. Jackson believes that in the current era community building within oncology must be “intentional” and not just based around “water cooler moments,” as the sense of isolation experienced by clinicians is “not fluff; this is critical.”
Initiatives such as virtual happy hours and game nights may be helpful, she suggested.
A colleague of hers likes to send out the dad joke of the day, “which made everybody groan, but let me tell you, it changed the affective tone before they started seeing all these really hard, sad patients.”
Setting boundaries, which was the topic of another session at ASCO 2023, is also an important way to address the “emotionally powerful” work of oncology, Dr. Jackson commented.
She underlined the need to channel or be “fully present when you are in the room” but emphasized the need to detach at the end of the day, commenting that “when you leave, you leave.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Friese reported relationships with Merck, NCCN/Pfizer, National Cancer Institute, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Simms/Mann Foundation. No other speakers reported relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
– but when it is also accompanied by a sense of emotional isolation, it can lead to reduced well-being and burnout.
The issue was discussed at a special session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and several speakers offered solutions.
Laurie Jean Lyckholm, MD, professor, Hematology/Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, polled the audience to ask how they deal with patient-related loss and grief.
The responses showed that 44.4% said they talk with their colleagues, 16.7% said they talk about it with family and friends, but 22.2% said that they simply move on to the next patient.
Dr. Lyckholm noted that there are positive and negative ways of dealing with grief.
One example of a positive way comes from an oncologist who attended one of her talks and shared with her how his practice deals with the issue.
“At the end of every fourth Friday, he closes his community practice office early and all the oncologists, everyone, stays for a while, and they have a list of the people who have died,” Dr. Lyckholm explained. As a group, they go through the list and reminisce about the patients who died, recalling funny incidents or things that person had said.
“I love this idea,” she said. “The most important thing is to commemorate that person.”
Amplified during pandemic
Like many other issues, the problem of how to deal with “professional grief” was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people were unable to see their dying relatives because of the restricted access to sealed-off, dedicated COVID-19 units. One oncologist who had developed a friendly relationship with a patient while treating them for cancer over several years was unable to visit the patient once they were ill with the disease and was left to communicate via an iPad. “It was the only way I could say ‘goodbye’ before she died. ... It still haunts me today, 2 years later,” the clinician recalled.
This anecdote illustrates “disenfranchised grief,” which occurs when an individual experiences a “significant loss and the resultant grief is not openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly mourned,” Dr. Lyckholm explained.
If this goes unrecognized, it can lead to shame, guilt, and organizational mistrust, resulting in reduced well-being and clinician burnout, she warned.
The pandemic also had an impact on clinicians directly. Dr. Lyckholm quoted one nurse practitioner who talked about coming back to a new “lonely normal” when returning to a Veterans Affairs hospital.
“I am still getting used to calling colleagues, and paging colleagues, and realizing that they just aren’t there,” the nurse practitioner said. “They aren’t there because they either left or died. I just didn’t expect that.”
Dr. Lyckholm said, “I don’t think we can ever stop acknowledging COVID, because it just had such a terrible impact on all of us.”
Teamwork intervention
The next speaker also polled the audience. Christopher Ryan Friese, PhD, RN, AOCN, Elizabeth Tone Hosmer Professor of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked the audience what strategy they would prioritize to reduce burnout, from the perspective of the entire cancer care team.
The response indicated that many (43.6%) would like to see team-based grief and bereavement sessions, while 31.1% thought it best to tackle low-value administrative work.
Dr. Friese drew on a teamwork intervention that researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, with support from the National Cancer Institute, implemented to help identify opportunities to improve cancer care delivery services.
It began with a focus group of nurses who were invited to identify practice pain points, then six 2-hour sessions with all members of the clinical team to identify and develop service expectations and commitments across the various roles.
After these sessions, the researchers saw a decrease in missing orders from 30% to 2%, while patient satisfaction increased from 93% to 97% as a result. Interestingly, there was also a reported rise in efficiency, practice quality and safety, and respectful professional behaviors.
The pilot was then rolled out across the whole institution, and Dr. Friese and colleagues also implemented a version of the program at their community medical oncology practice.
They had a huge response from patients and clinicians alike (with participation rates of 90% and 78%, respectively), and the survey results led to changes in workflow and the standardization of communications.
Importantly for Dr. Friese, the clinicians who took part wanted to repeat the survey to evaluate any practice changes, which was not part of the study protocol and had not been envisaged by the researchers.
So they developed a survey for clinicians, using as an inspiration the Choosing Wisely campaign by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation to identify the best treatments to improve patient outcomes and those to deprioritize.
They used the survey on 373 clinicians at the University of Michigan Health System and found that “the number one thing was getting rid of the administrative work” – that it doesn’t have to be done specifically by physicians or other providers and that other people can do it.
The second was time-consuming electronic health record tasks.
Both of these have since been the focus of an elimination and reduction process to give clinicians more time to do what matters most to them and their patients.
“We have the opportunity to do this in a different way,” Dr. Friese said, “and I think it’s a really powerful opportunity.”
“We can retrofit the solution, which is the pizza parties, and the yoga apps, and the T-shirts ... [or] we could actually redesign the work that we’re asking clinicians to do on a daily basis,” he commented.
“We could make the work easier to do so that you have more time with patients and less time with administrative work and have more time to process grief or to celebrate successes,” he concluded.
Tackling burnout
The final speaker, Vicki A. Jackson, MD, MPH, chief of palliative care, Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasized that the recognition of grief by a cancer care provider is “imperative” for physician well-being and pointed out that that interventions to help “do exist,” including ASCO’s SafeHaven collection of physician well-being resources.
Oncology inherently carries with it “threats” to well-being, including uncertainty and doubt, isolation, fears over one’s usefulness, exhaustion, the witnessing of suffering, and moral distress, she noted.
Things that are necessary for well-being, in contrast, include a sense of connection and community, having boundaries between work and personal life, self-awareness, compassion, and empowerment, among others.
Dr. Jackson believes that in the current era community building within oncology must be “intentional” and not just based around “water cooler moments,” as the sense of isolation experienced by clinicians is “not fluff; this is critical.”
Initiatives such as virtual happy hours and game nights may be helpful, she suggested.
A colleague of hers likes to send out the dad joke of the day, “which made everybody groan, but let me tell you, it changed the affective tone before they started seeing all these really hard, sad patients.”
Setting boundaries, which was the topic of another session at ASCO 2023, is also an important way to address the “emotionally powerful” work of oncology, Dr. Jackson commented.
She underlined the need to channel or be “fully present when you are in the room” but emphasized the need to detach at the end of the day, commenting that “when you leave, you leave.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Friese reported relationships with Merck, NCCN/Pfizer, National Cancer Institute, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Simms/Mann Foundation. No other speakers reported relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
– but when it is also accompanied by a sense of emotional isolation, it can lead to reduced well-being and burnout.
The issue was discussed at a special session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and several speakers offered solutions.
Laurie Jean Lyckholm, MD, professor, Hematology/Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, polled the audience to ask how they deal with patient-related loss and grief.
The responses showed that 44.4% said they talk with their colleagues, 16.7% said they talk about it with family and friends, but 22.2% said that they simply move on to the next patient.
Dr. Lyckholm noted that there are positive and negative ways of dealing with grief.
One example of a positive way comes from an oncologist who attended one of her talks and shared with her how his practice deals with the issue.
“At the end of every fourth Friday, he closes his community practice office early and all the oncologists, everyone, stays for a while, and they have a list of the people who have died,” Dr. Lyckholm explained. As a group, they go through the list and reminisce about the patients who died, recalling funny incidents or things that person had said.
“I love this idea,” she said. “The most important thing is to commemorate that person.”
Amplified during pandemic
Like many other issues, the problem of how to deal with “professional grief” was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people were unable to see their dying relatives because of the restricted access to sealed-off, dedicated COVID-19 units. One oncologist who had developed a friendly relationship with a patient while treating them for cancer over several years was unable to visit the patient once they were ill with the disease and was left to communicate via an iPad. “It was the only way I could say ‘goodbye’ before she died. ... It still haunts me today, 2 years later,” the clinician recalled.
This anecdote illustrates “disenfranchised grief,” which occurs when an individual experiences a “significant loss and the resultant grief is not openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly mourned,” Dr. Lyckholm explained.
If this goes unrecognized, it can lead to shame, guilt, and organizational mistrust, resulting in reduced well-being and clinician burnout, she warned.
The pandemic also had an impact on clinicians directly. Dr. Lyckholm quoted one nurse practitioner who talked about coming back to a new “lonely normal” when returning to a Veterans Affairs hospital.
“I am still getting used to calling colleagues, and paging colleagues, and realizing that they just aren’t there,” the nurse practitioner said. “They aren’t there because they either left or died. I just didn’t expect that.”
Dr. Lyckholm said, “I don’t think we can ever stop acknowledging COVID, because it just had such a terrible impact on all of us.”
Teamwork intervention
The next speaker also polled the audience. Christopher Ryan Friese, PhD, RN, AOCN, Elizabeth Tone Hosmer Professor of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked the audience what strategy they would prioritize to reduce burnout, from the perspective of the entire cancer care team.
The response indicated that many (43.6%) would like to see team-based grief and bereavement sessions, while 31.1% thought it best to tackle low-value administrative work.
Dr. Friese drew on a teamwork intervention that researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, with support from the National Cancer Institute, implemented to help identify opportunities to improve cancer care delivery services.
It began with a focus group of nurses who were invited to identify practice pain points, then six 2-hour sessions with all members of the clinical team to identify and develop service expectations and commitments across the various roles.
After these sessions, the researchers saw a decrease in missing orders from 30% to 2%, while patient satisfaction increased from 93% to 97% as a result. Interestingly, there was also a reported rise in efficiency, practice quality and safety, and respectful professional behaviors.
The pilot was then rolled out across the whole institution, and Dr. Friese and colleagues also implemented a version of the program at their community medical oncology practice.
They had a huge response from patients and clinicians alike (with participation rates of 90% and 78%, respectively), and the survey results led to changes in workflow and the standardization of communications.
Importantly for Dr. Friese, the clinicians who took part wanted to repeat the survey to evaluate any practice changes, which was not part of the study protocol and had not been envisaged by the researchers.
So they developed a survey for clinicians, using as an inspiration the Choosing Wisely campaign by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation to identify the best treatments to improve patient outcomes and those to deprioritize.
They used the survey on 373 clinicians at the University of Michigan Health System and found that “the number one thing was getting rid of the administrative work” – that it doesn’t have to be done specifically by physicians or other providers and that other people can do it.
The second was time-consuming electronic health record tasks.
Both of these have since been the focus of an elimination and reduction process to give clinicians more time to do what matters most to them and their patients.
“We have the opportunity to do this in a different way,” Dr. Friese said, “and I think it’s a really powerful opportunity.”
“We can retrofit the solution, which is the pizza parties, and the yoga apps, and the T-shirts ... [or] we could actually redesign the work that we’re asking clinicians to do on a daily basis,” he commented.
“We could make the work easier to do so that you have more time with patients and less time with administrative work and have more time to process grief or to celebrate successes,” he concluded.
Tackling burnout
The final speaker, Vicki A. Jackson, MD, MPH, chief of palliative care, Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasized that the recognition of grief by a cancer care provider is “imperative” for physician well-being and pointed out that that interventions to help “do exist,” including ASCO’s SafeHaven collection of physician well-being resources.
Oncology inherently carries with it “threats” to well-being, including uncertainty and doubt, isolation, fears over one’s usefulness, exhaustion, the witnessing of suffering, and moral distress, she noted.
Things that are necessary for well-being, in contrast, include a sense of connection and community, having boundaries between work and personal life, self-awareness, compassion, and empowerment, among others.
Dr. Jackson believes that in the current era community building within oncology must be “intentional” and not just based around “water cooler moments,” as the sense of isolation experienced by clinicians is “not fluff; this is critical.”
Initiatives such as virtual happy hours and game nights may be helpful, she suggested.
A colleague of hers likes to send out the dad joke of the day, “which made everybody groan, but let me tell you, it changed the affective tone before they started seeing all these really hard, sad patients.”
Setting boundaries, which was the topic of another session at ASCO 2023, is also an important way to address the “emotionally powerful” work of oncology, Dr. Jackson commented.
She underlined the need to channel or be “fully present when you are in the room” but emphasized the need to detach at the end of the day, commenting that “when you leave, you leave.”
No funding was declared. Dr. Friese reported relationships with Merck, NCCN/Pfizer, National Cancer Institute, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Simms/Mann Foundation. No other speakers reported relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2023
Rehabilitation improves walk test results for post–pulmonary embolism patients with persistent dyspnea
In patients with persistent dyspnea following a pulmonary embolism, rehabilitation should be considered as a treatment option, according to findings from a randomized, controlled trial comparing usual care to a twice-weekly, 8-week physical exercise program.
The prevalence of persistent dyspnea, functional limitations, and reduced quality of life (QoL) after pulmonary embolism (PE) ranges from 30% to 50% in published studies. While the underlying mechanisms remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, Øyvind Jervan, MD, and colleagues reported, research suggests that deconditioning and psychological factors contribute substantially to post-PE impairment. Optimal management remains unknown.
The investigators randomized adult patients 1:1 from two hospitals (Osfold Hospital and Akershus University Hospital) with PE identified via computed tomography pulmonary angiography 6-72 months prior to study inclusion to either a supervised outpatient exercise program or usual care. The once- or twice-weekly home-based program was tailored to each participant and included a 90-minute educational session on the cardiopulmonary system, diagnosis and treatment of PE and its possible long-term effects, the benefits of exercise and physical activity, and the management of breathlessness. Also during the intervention period, participants were given a simple home-based exercise program to be performed once or twice weekly. Differences between groups in the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), a standardized walking test that assesses exercise capacity, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included an endurance walk test (ESWT) and measures of symptoms and QoL.
Among 211 participants (median age 57 years; 56% men), the median time from diagnosis to inclusion was 10.3 months. Median baseline walking distance on the ISWT was 695 m with 21% achieving the 1,020-m maximum distance. At follow-up, a between-group difference of 53.0 m favored the rehabilitation group (89 evaluable subjects; 87 in usual care) (P = .0035). While subgroup analysis revealed a greater difference for those with shorter time from diagnosis (6-12 months vs. 12.1-72 months), the between-group differences were nonsignificant. Also, no ISWT differences between the intervention and control group were found for those with higher pulmonary embolism severity and dyspnea scores. The walk endurance test revealed no between-group differences.
Scores at follow-up on the Pulmonary Embolism-QoL questionnaire favored the rehabilitation group (mean difference –4%; P = .041), but there were no differences in generic QoL, dyspnea scores, or the ESWT.
“The present study adds to the growing evidence of the benefits of rehabilitation after PE,” the researchers stated. Although several recent studies have shown rehabilitation after PE results that were promising, the authors pointed out that most of these studies have been small or have lacked a control group, with great variations between them with respect to time, mode, and duration of intervention. In addition, the current study is the largest one addressing the effect of rehabilitation after PE to demonstrate in subjects with persistent dyspnea a positive effect on exercise capacity and QoL.
The researchers also commented that the small detected mean difference of 53 m in walking distance was lower than has been considered a worthwhile improvement by some, and its clinical relevance can be debated. Other studies, however, have used mean group differences of 40-62 m as clinically meaningful. The authors underscored also that the ISWT data were subject to a considerable ceiling effect which may underestimate the effect size.
Addressing study limitations, the researchers added that: “The rehabilitation program in the present study consisted mainly of exercise training. It is unknown whether the addition of occupational therapy, psychology, or dietary therapy would provide additional benefits for the participants. Most participants had mild symptoms, which may have limited the potential benefits of our rehabilitation program.”
The project was funded by Østfold Hospital Trust. Dr. Jervan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
In patients with persistent dyspnea following a pulmonary embolism, rehabilitation should be considered as a treatment option, according to findings from a randomized, controlled trial comparing usual care to a twice-weekly, 8-week physical exercise program.
The prevalence of persistent dyspnea, functional limitations, and reduced quality of life (QoL) after pulmonary embolism (PE) ranges from 30% to 50% in published studies. While the underlying mechanisms remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, Øyvind Jervan, MD, and colleagues reported, research suggests that deconditioning and psychological factors contribute substantially to post-PE impairment. Optimal management remains unknown.
The investigators randomized adult patients 1:1 from two hospitals (Osfold Hospital and Akershus University Hospital) with PE identified via computed tomography pulmonary angiography 6-72 months prior to study inclusion to either a supervised outpatient exercise program or usual care. The once- or twice-weekly home-based program was tailored to each participant and included a 90-minute educational session on the cardiopulmonary system, diagnosis and treatment of PE and its possible long-term effects, the benefits of exercise and physical activity, and the management of breathlessness. Also during the intervention period, participants were given a simple home-based exercise program to be performed once or twice weekly. Differences between groups in the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), a standardized walking test that assesses exercise capacity, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included an endurance walk test (ESWT) and measures of symptoms and QoL.
Among 211 participants (median age 57 years; 56% men), the median time from diagnosis to inclusion was 10.3 months. Median baseline walking distance on the ISWT was 695 m with 21% achieving the 1,020-m maximum distance. At follow-up, a between-group difference of 53.0 m favored the rehabilitation group (89 evaluable subjects; 87 in usual care) (P = .0035). While subgroup analysis revealed a greater difference for those with shorter time from diagnosis (6-12 months vs. 12.1-72 months), the between-group differences were nonsignificant. Also, no ISWT differences between the intervention and control group were found for those with higher pulmonary embolism severity and dyspnea scores. The walk endurance test revealed no between-group differences.
Scores at follow-up on the Pulmonary Embolism-QoL questionnaire favored the rehabilitation group (mean difference –4%; P = .041), but there were no differences in generic QoL, dyspnea scores, or the ESWT.
“The present study adds to the growing evidence of the benefits of rehabilitation after PE,” the researchers stated. Although several recent studies have shown rehabilitation after PE results that were promising, the authors pointed out that most of these studies have been small or have lacked a control group, with great variations between them with respect to time, mode, and duration of intervention. In addition, the current study is the largest one addressing the effect of rehabilitation after PE to demonstrate in subjects with persistent dyspnea a positive effect on exercise capacity and QoL.
The researchers also commented that the small detected mean difference of 53 m in walking distance was lower than has been considered a worthwhile improvement by some, and its clinical relevance can be debated. Other studies, however, have used mean group differences of 40-62 m as clinically meaningful. The authors underscored also that the ISWT data were subject to a considerable ceiling effect which may underestimate the effect size.
Addressing study limitations, the researchers added that: “The rehabilitation program in the present study consisted mainly of exercise training. It is unknown whether the addition of occupational therapy, psychology, or dietary therapy would provide additional benefits for the participants. Most participants had mild symptoms, which may have limited the potential benefits of our rehabilitation program.”
The project was funded by Østfold Hospital Trust. Dr. Jervan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
In patients with persistent dyspnea following a pulmonary embolism, rehabilitation should be considered as a treatment option, according to findings from a randomized, controlled trial comparing usual care to a twice-weekly, 8-week physical exercise program.
The prevalence of persistent dyspnea, functional limitations, and reduced quality of life (QoL) after pulmonary embolism (PE) ranges from 30% to 50% in published studies. While the underlying mechanisms remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, Øyvind Jervan, MD, and colleagues reported, research suggests that deconditioning and psychological factors contribute substantially to post-PE impairment. Optimal management remains unknown.
The investigators randomized adult patients 1:1 from two hospitals (Osfold Hospital and Akershus University Hospital) with PE identified via computed tomography pulmonary angiography 6-72 months prior to study inclusion to either a supervised outpatient exercise program or usual care. The once- or twice-weekly home-based program was tailored to each participant and included a 90-minute educational session on the cardiopulmonary system, diagnosis and treatment of PE and its possible long-term effects, the benefits of exercise and physical activity, and the management of breathlessness. Also during the intervention period, participants were given a simple home-based exercise program to be performed once or twice weekly. Differences between groups in the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), a standardized walking test that assesses exercise capacity, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included an endurance walk test (ESWT) and measures of symptoms and QoL.
Among 211 participants (median age 57 years; 56% men), the median time from diagnosis to inclusion was 10.3 months. Median baseline walking distance on the ISWT was 695 m with 21% achieving the 1,020-m maximum distance. At follow-up, a between-group difference of 53.0 m favored the rehabilitation group (89 evaluable subjects; 87 in usual care) (P = .0035). While subgroup analysis revealed a greater difference for those with shorter time from diagnosis (6-12 months vs. 12.1-72 months), the between-group differences were nonsignificant. Also, no ISWT differences between the intervention and control group were found for those with higher pulmonary embolism severity and dyspnea scores. The walk endurance test revealed no between-group differences.
Scores at follow-up on the Pulmonary Embolism-QoL questionnaire favored the rehabilitation group (mean difference –4%; P = .041), but there were no differences in generic QoL, dyspnea scores, or the ESWT.
“The present study adds to the growing evidence of the benefits of rehabilitation after PE,” the researchers stated. Although several recent studies have shown rehabilitation after PE results that were promising, the authors pointed out that most of these studies have been small or have lacked a control group, with great variations between them with respect to time, mode, and duration of intervention. In addition, the current study is the largest one addressing the effect of rehabilitation after PE to demonstrate in subjects with persistent dyspnea a positive effect on exercise capacity and QoL.
The researchers also commented that the small detected mean difference of 53 m in walking distance was lower than has been considered a worthwhile improvement by some, and its clinical relevance can be debated. Other studies, however, have used mean group differences of 40-62 m as clinically meaningful. The authors underscored also that the ISWT data were subject to a considerable ceiling effect which may underestimate the effect size.
Addressing study limitations, the researchers added that: “The rehabilitation program in the present study consisted mainly of exercise training. It is unknown whether the addition of occupational therapy, psychology, or dietary therapy would provide additional benefits for the participants. Most participants had mild symptoms, which may have limited the potential benefits of our rehabilitation program.”
The project was funded by Østfold Hospital Trust. Dr. Jervan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM THE JOURNAL CHEST
Patients with post-COVID cognitive symptoms may have gliosis
In a case-control study of 40 patients who were treated at a tertiary care psychiatric hospital in Canada, the level of translocator protein total distribution volume (TSPO VT), a marker of gliosis, was 9.23 mL/cm3 among patients with COVID-DC and 7.72 mL/cm3 among control persons. Differences were particularly notable in the ventral striatum and dorsal putamen.
“Most theories assume there is inflammation in the brain [with] long COVID,” but that assumption had not been studied, author Jeffrey H. Meyer, MD, PhD, Canada Research Chair in Neurochemistry of Major Depressive Disorder at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Such information is pivotal to developing treatments.”
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Quantifiable marker
The investigators sought to determine whether levels of TSPO VT, which are quantifiable with PET, are elevated in the dorsal putamen, ventral striatum, prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and hippocampus of patients with COVID-DC, compared with patients without this syndrome. These brain regions were chosen, according to the authors, “because injury in these regions, which can cause gliosis, also induces symptoms of COVID-DC.”
The study was conducted from April 2021 through June 30, 2022. The investigators compared levels of TSPO VT in the selected brain regions of 20 participants with COVID-DC (mean age, 32.7 years; 60% women) with that of 20 control persons (mean age, 33.3 years; 55% women). TSPO VT was measured with fluorine F18–labeled N-(2-(2-fluoroethoxy)benzyl)-N-(4-phenoxypyridin-3-yl)acetamide PET.
The difference in TSPO VT was most noticeable in the ventral striatum (mean difference, 1.97 mL/cm3) and dorsal putamen (mean difference, 1.70 mL/cm3). The study authors suggest that gliosis in these areas may explain some of the persistent symptoms reported in structured clinical interviews and assessed on neuropsychological and psychological testing.
For patients with COVID-DC, motor speed on the finger-tapping test was negatively associated with dorsal putamen TSPO VT (r, −0.53). The 10 participants with COVID-DC whose speed was lowest had higher mean dorsal putamen TSPO VT levels than those of control persons by 2.3 mL/cm3.
The investigators could not assess a possible association between the ventral striatum TSPO VT and anhedonia because all participants had these symptoms. No significant correlations were found between depression and TSPO VT in the prefrontal cortex or anterior cingulate cortex.
The authors acknowledged that the study was cross-sectional, and so the duration of persistently elevated TSPO VT is not yet known. In addition, elevation in TSPO VT is not completely specific to glial cells, and although correlations with finger-tapping test performance reflect associations between brain changes and symptoms, they do not prove cause and effect.
“Presently, clinicians can use treatments for symptoms in other illnesses that are [also] common with long COVID. We need better than this,” said Dr. Meyer. “Clients with long COVID should be able to state their symptoms, and the practitioner should have an evidence-based matching treatment to recommend.”
Research is ongoing. “We are acquiring more information regarding different types of inflammation in the brain, whether there is ongoing injury, and whether treatments that influence inflammation are helpful,” said Dr. Meyer.
Jigsaw puzzle
“While this is an important piece in the jigsaw puzzle of neuroinflammation in chronic neurological disease, it is important to keep in mind that we still lack understanding of the complex picture for several reasons,” Alexander Gerhard, MD, honorary senior lecturer in neuroscience at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Among these reasons is that the PET technique used in the study is noisy and not restricted to glial cells, he wrote. TSPO expression is only one part of the brain’s neuroinflammatory response, but PET techniques “do not currently allow us to distinguish between different states of microglial activation.” In addition, “a much more detailed understanding of microglial activation at different time points” is needed before neuroinflammatory changes can be targeted therapeutically, Dr. Gerhard wrote.
In a comment, Vilma Gabbay, MD, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of biomarkers and dimensional psychiatry in the Psychiatry Research Institute at Montefiore Einstein, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “this is an important initial step to better understand the neuropsychiatric consequences of COVID even in only a mild and moderate viral illness.” TSPO imaging through PET scanning has been used as an index for neuroinflammation and gliosis. Researchers have used it to study neurodegenerative diseases, but as the authors noted, the ligand is not specific for gliosis.
“Follow-up large cohort studies including other measures of neuroimaging modalities assessing circuitry and neurochemistry are needed,” she said. “Similarly, studying the blood-brain barrier will also allow us to better understand how the immune reaction in the blood transitions to the brain.”
This field of research is evolving, and clinical trials are ongoing, Dr. Gabbay added. Meanwhile, clinicians should monitor for, assess, and treat neuropsychiatric symptoms and “follow the literature for new research and management recommendations.”
The study was primarily funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project grant to the authors, with some funding from the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research. Dr. Meyer received support from their Canada Research Chair awards and received grants and support from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work. Dr. Gerhard and Dr. Gabbay disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a case-control study of 40 patients who were treated at a tertiary care psychiatric hospital in Canada, the level of translocator protein total distribution volume (TSPO VT), a marker of gliosis, was 9.23 mL/cm3 among patients with COVID-DC and 7.72 mL/cm3 among control persons. Differences were particularly notable in the ventral striatum and dorsal putamen.
“Most theories assume there is inflammation in the brain [with] long COVID,” but that assumption had not been studied, author Jeffrey H. Meyer, MD, PhD, Canada Research Chair in Neurochemistry of Major Depressive Disorder at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Such information is pivotal to developing treatments.”
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Quantifiable marker
The investigators sought to determine whether levels of TSPO VT, which are quantifiable with PET, are elevated in the dorsal putamen, ventral striatum, prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and hippocampus of patients with COVID-DC, compared with patients without this syndrome. These brain regions were chosen, according to the authors, “because injury in these regions, which can cause gliosis, also induces symptoms of COVID-DC.”
The study was conducted from April 2021 through June 30, 2022. The investigators compared levels of TSPO VT in the selected brain regions of 20 participants with COVID-DC (mean age, 32.7 years; 60% women) with that of 20 control persons (mean age, 33.3 years; 55% women). TSPO VT was measured with fluorine F18–labeled N-(2-(2-fluoroethoxy)benzyl)-N-(4-phenoxypyridin-3-yl)acetamide PET.
The difference in TSPO VT was most noticeable in the ventral striatum (mean difference, 1.97 mL/cm3) and dorsal putamen (mean difference, 1.70 mL/cm3). The study authors suggest that gliosis in these areas may explain some of the persistent symptoms reported in structured clinical interviews and assessed on neuropsychological and psychological testing.
For patients with COVID-DC, motor speed on the finger-tapping test was negatively associated with dorsal putamen TSPO VT (r, −0.53). The 10 participants with COVID-DC whose speed was lowest had higher mean dorsal putamen TSPO VT levels than those of control persons by 2.3 mL/cm3.
The investigators could not assess a possible association between the ventral striatum TSPO VT and anhedonia because all participants had these symptoms. No significant correlations were found between depression and TSPO VT in the prefrontal cortex or anterior cingulate cortex.
The authors acknowledged that the study was cross-sectional, and so the duration of persistently elevated TSPO VT is not yet known. In addition, elevation in TSPO VT is not completely specific to glial cells, and although correlations with finger-tapping test performance reflect associations between brain changes and symptoms, they do not prove cause and effect.
“Presently, clinicians can use treatments for symptoms in other illnesses that are [also] common with long COVID. We need better than this,” said Dr. Meyer. “Clients with long COVID should be able to state their symptoms, and the practitioner should have an evidence-based matching treatment to recommend.”
Research is ongoing. “We are acquiring more information regarding different types of inflammation in the brain, whether there is ongoing injury, and whether treatments that influence inflammation are helpful,” said Dr. Meyer.
Jigsaw puzzle
“While this is an important piece in the jigsaw puzzle of neuroinflammation in chronic neurological disease, it is important to keep in mind that we still lack understanding of the complex picture for several reasons,” Alexander Gerhard, MD, honorary senior lecturer in neuroscience at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Among these reasons is that the PET technique used in the study is noisy and not restricted to glial cells, he wrote. TSPO expression is only one part of the brain’s neuroinflammatory response, but PET techniques “do not currently allow us to distinguish between different states of microglial activation.” In addition, “a much more detailed understanding of microglial activation at different time points” is needed before neuroinflammatory changes can be targeted therapeutically, Dr. Gerhard wrote.
In a comment, Vilma Gabbay, MD, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of biomarkers and dimensional psychiatry in the Psychiatry Research Institute at Montefiore Einstein, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “this is an important initial step to better understand the neuropsychiatric consequences of COVID even in only a mild and moderate viral illness.” TSPO imaging through PET scanning has been used as an index for neuroinflammation and gliosis. Researchers have used it to study neurodegenerative diseases, but as the authors noted, the ligand is not specific for gliosis.
“Follow-up large cohort studies including other measures of neuroimaging modalities assessing circuitry and neurochemistry are needed,” she said. “Similarly, studying the blood-brain barrier will also allow us to better understand how the immune reaction in the blood transitions to the brain.”
This field of research is evolving, and clinical trials are ongoing, Dr. Gabbay added. Meanwhile, clinicians should monitor for, assess, and treat neuropsychiatric symptoms and “follow the literature for new research and management recommendations.”
The study was primarily funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project grant to the authors, with some funding from the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research. Dr. Meyer received support from their Canada Research Chair awards and received grants and support from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work. Dr. Gerhard and Dr. Gabbay disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a case-control study of 40 patients who were treated at a tertiary care psychiatric hospital in Canada, the level of translocator protein total distribution volume (TSPO VT), a marker of gliosis, was 9.23 mL/cm3 among patients with COVID-DC and 7.72 mL/cm3 among control persons. Differences were particularly notable in the ventral striatum and dorsal putamen.
“Most theories assume there is inflammation in the brain [with] long COVID,” but that assumption had not been studied, author Jeffrey H. Meyer, MD, PhD, Canada Research Chair in Neurochemistry of Major Depressive Disorder at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Such information is pivotal to developing treatments.”
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Quantifiable marker
The investigators sought to determine whether levels of TSPO VT, which are quantifiable with PET, are elevated in the dorsal putamen, ventral striatum, prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and hippocampus of patients with COVID-DC, compared with patients without this syndrome. These brain regions were chosen, according to the authors, “because injury in these regions, which can cause gliosis, also induces symptoms of COVID-DC.”
The study was conducted from April 2021 through June 30, 2022. The investigators compared levels of TSPO VT in the selected brain regions of 20 participants with COVID-DC (mean age, 32.7 years; 60% women) with that of 20 control persons (mean age, 33.3 years; 55% women). TSPO VT was measured with fluorine F18–labeled N-(2-(2-fluoroethoxy)benzyl)-N-(4-phenoxypyridin-3-yl)acetamide PET.
The difference in TSPO VT was most noticeable in the ventral striatum (mean difference, 1.97 mL/cm3) and dorsal putamen (mean difference, 1.70 mL/cm3). The study authors suggest that gliosis in these areas may explain some of the persistent symptoms reported in structured clinical interviews and assessed on neuropsychological and psychological testing.
For patients with COVID-DC, motor speed on the finger-tapping test was negatively associated with dorsal putamen TSPO VT (r, −0.53). The 10 participants with COVID-DC whose speed was lowest had higher mean dorsal putamen TSPO VT levels than those of control persons by 2.3 mL/cm3.
The investigators could not assess a possible association between the ventral striatum TSPO VT and anhedonia because all participants had these symptoms. No significant correlations were found between depression and TSPO VT in the prefrontal cortex or anterior cingulate cortex.
The authors acknowledged that the study was cross-sectional, and so the duration of persistently elevated TSPO VT is not yet known. In addition, elevation in TSPO VT is not completely specific to glial cells, and although correlations with finger-tapping test performance reflect associations between brain changes and symptoms, they do not prove cause and effect.
“Presently, clinicians can use treatments for symptoms in other illnesses that are [also] common with long COVID. We need better than this,” said Dr. Meyer. “Clients with long COVID should be able to state their symptoms, and the practitioner should have an evidence-based matching treatment to recommend.”
Research is ongoing. “We are acquiring more information regarding different types of inflammation in the brain, whether there is ongoing injury, and whether treatments that influence inflammation are helpful,” said Dr. Meyer.
Jigsaw puzzle
“While this is an important piece in the jigsaw puzzle of neuroinflammation in chronic neurological disease, it is important to keep in mind that we still lack understanding of the complex picture for several reasons,” Alexander Gerhard, MD, honorary senior lecturer in neuroscience at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Among these reasons is that the PET technique used in the study is noisy and not restricted to glial cells, he wrote. TSPO expression is only one part of the brain’s neuroinflammatory response, but PET techniques “do not currently allow us to distinguish between different states of microglial activation.” In addition, “a much more detailed understanding of microglial activation at different time points” is needed before neuroinflammatory changes can be targeted therapeutically, Dr. Gerhard wrote.
In a comment, Vilma Gabbay, MD, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of biomarkers and dimensional psychiatry in the Psychiatry Research Institute at Montefiore Einstein, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “this is an important initial step to better understand the neuropsychiatric consequences of COVID even in only a mild and moderate viral illness.” TSPO imaging through PET scanning has been used as an index for neuroinflammation and gliosis. Researchers have used it to study neurodegenerative diseases, but as the authors noted, the ligand is not specific for gliosis.
“Follow-up large cohort studies including other measures of neuroimaging modalities assessing circuitry and neurochemistry are needed,” she said. “Similarly, studying the blood-brain barrier will also allow us to better understand how the immune reaction in the blood transitions to the brain.”
This field of research is evolving, and clinical trials are ongoing, Dr. Gabbay added. Meanwhile, clinicians should monitor for, assess, and treat neuropsychiatric symptoms and “follow the literature for new research and management recommendations.”
The study was primarily funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project grant to the authors, with some funding from the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research. Dr. Meyer received support from their Canada Research Chair awards and received grants and support from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work. Dr. Gerhard and Dr. Gabbay disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
ASCO 2023: Promising results in breast cancer from NATALEE and PHERGain
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University, coming to you today from the 2023 ASCO annual meeting in Chicago.
It’s been an exciting year for breast cancer news. I want to make sure that you hear about the two studies that I find the most impactful. One is the NATALEE study looking at ribociclib in adjuvant ER-positive patients at high risk for recurrence. You saw the press release a few weeks ago, and we now have the data. There is no doubt that this is a positive trial.
The details here are important. These were pre- or postmenopausal women, and men as well. Premenopausal women and men also had an LHRH agonist in addition to an aromatase inhibitor – that could have been either letrozole or anastrozole – then randomized to ribociclib or placebo.
The dose of ribociclib that you’re used to thinking about is 600 mg daily for 3 weeks and 7 days off. That’s the approved dose in the metastatic setting. In the adjuvant trial, they used 400 mg, and that was intentional to try to reduce some of the toxicity because the plan was for 3 years of therapy. Managing toxicity and really making this tolerable for patients was crucial.
We’ve now seen the efficacy results, with a roughly 3% reduction in the risk for recurrence; 90% disease-free survival in the ribociclib arm, 87% in the control arm, some patients still having prolongation of QTc but no serious arrhythmias; some patients still with myelosuppression, but risk for serious infections was really very low.
We have no head-to-head trials in any setting, and I doubt that our industry colleagues are going to be interested in a head-to-head setting.
We’re going to need to pay particular attention to long-term follow-up and to quality of life and toxicity data as to which our patients prefer. We may need to think about other ways of doing those direct comparisons with public funding, where we can get the answers our patients deserve.
I also want to think about the other end of the spectrum, those patients with HER2-positive disease. We saw fantastic results from the PHERGain study from our colleagues in Spain. This was a trial that took patients with predominantly stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer. These are patients that we would treat with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with dual HER2-targeted therapy.
Years ago, we saw results of some small, single-arm, phase 2 studies, suggesting that some of those patients may be so sensitive to biologic therapy that they have a pathologic complete response with HER2-targeted therapy – HER2-targeted therapy with endocrine therapy if they are positive – with no chemotherapy at all. Our question has always been how to identify those patients. Can we identify them well enough that we would be comfortable not treating them with chemotherapy? Importantly, If they didn’t get chemotherapy, what’s their long-term outcome?
The PHERGain trial lets us look at all those things. The PHERGain trial gave patients two cycles of dual HER2-targeted therapy, pertuzumab and trastuzumab, hormone therapy if also ER positive, and they got an FDG-PET scan after two cycles of therapy.
If they had a significant PET response, those patients were then randomized to switch to chemotherapy, standard TCHP, or continue biologic therapy alone for a total of six cycles. They then went to surgery. If they had a pathologic complete response, whether they had gotten chemotherapy or no chemotherapy, they completed the HER2-targeted therapy. If they still had residual disease, they got chemotherapy if chemotherapy had not been administered before, and they may have gotten other HER2-targeted therapies if they had already received chemotherapy.
There were over 300 patients in this trial, and my memory is that roughly two thirds of them had a PET response. About 86 patients randomized to continue biologic therapy had a pathologic complete response, so about one-third of those for whom the PET imaging said they were responding with biologic therapy only had a pathologic complete response.
They have now been followed for 3 years. The 3-year disease-free survival results look very reassuring. Of those 86 patients, one patient had a local recurrence and no patient had a distant recurrence.
This is what we’ve been waiting for. Can we identify those patients who have an excellent prognosis with biologic therapy alone so that we can avoid the toxicities? This is really where you’ll see the research over the coming years in breast cancer, looking at additional therapies in high-risk patients who don’t do so well with our standard therapies, and better stratification of patients who do so well with our standard therapies that we may be able to do less.
This is one of the ways that we’ll be able to do that. I look forward to sharing those results with you over coming years.
Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University, coming to you today from the 2023 ASCO annual meeting in Chicago.
It’s been an exciting year for breast cancer news. I want to make sure that you hear about the two studies that I find the most impactful. One is the NATALEE study looking at ribociclib in adjuvant ER-positive patients at high risk for recurrence. You saw the press release a few weeks ago, and we now have the data. There is no doubt that this is a positive trial.
The details here are important. These were pre- or postmenopausal women, and men as well. Premenopausal women and men also had an LHRH agonist in addition to an aromatase inhibitor – that could have been either letrozole or anastrozole – then randomized to ribociclib or placebo.
The dose of ribociclib that you’re used to thinking about is 600 mg daily for 3 weeks and 7 days off. That’s the approved dose in the metastatic setting. In the adjuvant trial, they used 400 mg, and that was intentional to try to reduce some of the toxicity because the plan was for 3 years of therapy. Managing toxicity and really making this tolerable for patients was crucial.
We’ve now seen the efficacy results, with a roughly 3% reduction in the risk for recurrence; 90% disease-free survival in the ribociclib arm, 87% in the control arm, some patients still having prolongation of QTc but no serious arrhythmias; some patients still with myelosuppression, but risk for serious infections was really very low.
We have no head-to-head trials in any setting, and I doubt that our industry colleagues are going to be interested in a head-to-head setting.
We’re going to need to pay particular attention to long-term follow-up and to quality of life and toxicity data as to which our patients prefer. We may need to think about other ways of doing those direct comparisons with public funding, where we can get the answers our patients deserve.
I also want to think about the other end of the spectrum, those patients with HER2-positive disease. We saw fantastic results from the PHERGain study from our colleagues in Spain. This was a trial that took patients with predominantly stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer. These are patients that we would treat with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with dual HER2-targeted therapy.
Years ago, we saw results of some small, single-arm, phase 2 studies, suggesting that some of those patients may be so sensitive to biologic therapy that they have a pathologic complete response with HER2-targeted therapy – HER2-targeted therapy with endocrine therapy if they are positive – with no chemotherapy at all. Our question has always been how to identify those patients. Can we identify them well enough that we would be comfortable not treating them with chemotherapy? Importantly, If they didn’t get chemotherapy, what’s their long-term outcome?
The PHERGain trial lets us look at all those things. The PHERGain trial gave patients two cycles of dual HER2-targeted therapy, pertuzumab and trastuzumab, hormone therapy if also ER positive, and they got an FDG-PET scan after two cycles of therapy.
If they had a significant PET response, those patients were then randomized to switch to chemotherapy, standard TCHP, or continue biologic therapy alone for a total of six cycles. They then went to surgery. If they had a pathologic complete response, whether they had gotten chemotherapy or no chemotherapy, they completed the HER2-targeted therapy. If they still had residual disease, they got chemotherapy if chemotherapy had not been administered before, and they may have gotten other HER2-targeted therapies if they had already received chemotherapy.
There were over 300 patients in this trial, and my memory is that roughly two thirds of them had a PET response. About 86 patients randomized to continue biologic therapy had a pathologic complete response, so about one-third of those for whom the PET imaging said they were responding with biologic therapy only had a pathologic complete response.
They have now been followed for 3 years. The 3-year disease-free survival results look very reassuring. Of those 86 patients, one patient had a local recurrence and no patient had a distant recurrence.
This is what we’ve been waiting for. Can we identify those patients who have an excellent prognosis with biologic therapy alone so that we can avoid the toxicities? This is really where you’ll see the research over the coming years in breast cancer, looking at additional therapies in high-risk patients who don’t do so well with our standard therapies, and better stratification of patients who do so well with our standard therapies that we may be able to do less.
This is one of the ways that we’ll be able to do that. I look forward to sharing those results with you over coming years.
Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University, coming to you today from the 2023 ASCO annual meeting in Chicago.
It’s been an exciting year for breast cancer news. I want to make sure that you hear about the two studies that I find the most impactful. One is the NATALEE study looking at ribociclib in adjuvant ER-positive patients at high risk for recurrence. You saw the press release a few weeks ago, and we now have the data. There is no doubt that this is a positive trial.
The details here are important. These were pre- or postmenopausal women, and men as well. Premenopausal women and men also had an LHRH agonist in addition to an aromatase inhibitor – that could have been either letrozole or anastrozole – then randomized to ribociclib or placebo.
The dose of ribociclib that you’re used to thinking about is 600 mg daily for 3 weeks and 7 days off. That’s the approved dose in the metastatic setting. In the adjuvant trial, they used 400 mg, and that was intentional to try to reduce some of the toxicity because the plan was for 3 years of therapy. Managing toxicity and really making this tolerable for patients was crucial.
We’ve now seen the efficacy results, with a roughly 3% reduction in the risk for recurrence; 90% disease-free survival in the ribociclib arm, 87% in the control arm, some patients still having prolongation of QTc but no serious arrhythmias; some patients still with myelosuppression, but risk for serious infections was really very low.
We have no head-to-head trials in any setting, and I doubt that our industry colleagues are going to be interested in a head-to-head setting.
We’re going to need to pay particular attention to long-term follow-up and to quality of life and toxicity data as to which our patients prefer. We may need to think about other ways of doing those direct comparisons with public funding, where we can get the answers our patients deserve.
I also want to think about the other end of the spectrum, those patients with HER2-positive disease. We saw fantastic results from the PHERGain study from our colleagues in Spain. This was a trial that took patients with predominantly stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer. These are patients that we would treat with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with dual HER2-targeted therapy.
Years ago, we saw results of some small, single-arm, phase 2 studies, suggesting that some of those patients may be so sensitive to biologic therapy that they have a pathologic complete response with HER2-targeted therapy – HER2-targeted therapy with endocrine therapy if they are positive – with no chemotherapy at all. Our question has always been how to identify those patients. Can we identify them well enough that we would be comfortable not treating them with chemotherapy? Importantly, If they didn’t get chemotherapy, what’s their long-term outcome?
The PHERGain trial lets us look at all those things. The PHERGain trial gave patients two cycles of dual HER2-targeted therapy, pertuzumab and trastuzumab, hormone therapy if also ER positive, and they got an FDG-PET scan after two cycles of therapy.
If they had a significant PET response, those patients were then randomized to switch to chemotherapy, standard TCHP, or continue biologic therapy alone for a total of six cycles. They then went to surgery. If they had a pathologic complete response, whether they had gotten chemotherapy or no chemotherapy, they completed the HER2-targeted therapy. If they still had residual disease, they got chemotherapy if chemotherapy had not been administered before, and they may have gotten other HER2-targeted therapies if they had already received chemotherapy.
There were over 300 patients in this trial, and my memory is that roughly two thirds of them had a PET response. About 86 patients randomized to continue biologic therapy had a pathologic complete response, so about one-third of those for whom the PET imaging said they were responding with biologic therapy only had a pathologic complete response.
They have now been followed for 3 years. The 3-year disease-free survival results look very reassuring. Of those 86 patients, one patient had a local recurrence and no patient had a distant recurrence.
This is what we’ve been waiting for. Can we identify those patients who have an excellent prognosis with biologic therapy alone so that we can avoid the toxicities? This is really where you’ll see the research over the coming years in breast cancer, looking at additional therapies in high-risk patients who don’t do so well with our standard therapies, and better stratification of patients who do so well with our standard therapies that we may be able to do less.
This is one of the ways that we’ll be able to do that. I look forward to sharing those results with you over coming years.
Kathy D. Miller, MD, is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.