User login
One Patient Changed This Oncologist’s View of Hope. Here’s How.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
FDA Expands Durvalumab Label to Endometrial Cancer
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Beta Thalassemia: Pricey Gene Therapy Hits The Mark
With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.
Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.
Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.
A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.
There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.
“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat
Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)
The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.
In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”
In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.
Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.
Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.
But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In
Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.
In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.
Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective
As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”
The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”
In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications
What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.
In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.
“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.
One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”
Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief
Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)
As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.
Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.
With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.
Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.
Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.
A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.
There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.
“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat
Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)
The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.
In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”
In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.
Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.
Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.
But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In
Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.
In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.
Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective
As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”
The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”
In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications
What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.
In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.
“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.
One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”
Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief
Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)
As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.
Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.
With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.
Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.
Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.
A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.
There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.
“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat
Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)
The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.
In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”
In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.
Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.
Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.
But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In
Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.
In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.
Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective
As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”
The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”
In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications
What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.
In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.
“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.
One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”
Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief
Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)
As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.
Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.
AMA Wrestles With AI But Acts on Prior Authorization, Other Concerns
The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.
Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.
One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.
(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)
A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.
The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.
AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.
They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.
While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”
He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.
Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.
He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.
“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”
AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
Congress Mulling
The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.
Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.
A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.
The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:
- Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
- Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
- Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
- Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.
Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.
“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues
At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:
- Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
- Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
- Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
- Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
- Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
- Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
- Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
- Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
- Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.
Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.
One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.
(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)
A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.
The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.
AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.
They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.
While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”
He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.
Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.
He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.
“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”
AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
Congress Mulling
The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.
Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.
A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.
The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:
- Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
- Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
- Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
- Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.
Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.
“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues
At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:
- Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
- Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
- Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
- Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
- Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
- Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
- Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
- Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
- Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.
Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.
One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.
(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)
A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.
The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.
AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.
They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.
While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”
He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.
Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.
He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.
“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”
AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
Congress Mulling
The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.
Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.
A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.
The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:
- Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
- Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
- Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
- Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.
Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.
“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues
At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:
- Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
- Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
- Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
- Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
- Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
- Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
- Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
- Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
- Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Engineering Mind Helps Investigator Develop New Cancer Therapies
Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.
Using molecular profiling and patient-derived xenografts, Dr. Kopetz discovered resistance mechanisms and helped develop approaches to overcome such resistant pathways. His clinical studies analyzing vemurafenib, cetuximab, and irinotecan resulted in new additions to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and led to the FDA approval of encorafenib plus cetuximab for adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) with a BRAF V600E mutation after prior therapy.
In an interview, Dr. Kopetz shared his unique road to research, how his engineering background influences his work, and why his recent award’s namesake holds special significance to him.
What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?
Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.
I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.
One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?
Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.
While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?
Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.
I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.
Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.
The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.
Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.
The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
Does your engineering background impact your work today?
Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.
Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.
These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?
Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.
It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.
Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.
Using molecular profiling and patient-derived xenografts, Dr. Kopetz discovered resistance mechanisms and helped develop approaches to overcome such resistant pathways. His clinical studies analyzing vemurafenib, cetuximab, and irinotecan resulted in new additions to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and led to the FDA approval of encorafenib plus cetuximab for adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) with a BRAF V600E mutation after prior therapy.
In an interview, Dr. Kopetz shared his unique road to research, how his engineering background influences his work, and why his recent award’s namesake holds special significance to him.
What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?
Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.
I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.
One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?
Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.
While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?
Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.
I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.
Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.
The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.
Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.
The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
Does your engineering background impact your work today?
Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.
Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.
These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?
Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.
It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.
Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.
Using molecular profiling and patient-derived xenografts, Dr. Kopetz discovered resistance mechanisms and helped develop approaches to overcome such resistant pathways. His clinical studies analyzing vemurafenib, cetuximab, and irinotecan resulted in new additions to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and led to the FDA approval of encorafenib plus cetuximab for adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) with a BRAF V600E mutation after prior therapy.
In an interview, Dr. Kopetz shared his unique road to research, how his engineering background influences his work, and why his recent award’s namesake holds special significance to him.
What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?
Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.
I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.
One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?
Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.
While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?
Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.
I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.
Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.
The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.
Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.
The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
Does your engineering background impact your work today?
Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.
Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.
These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?
Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.
It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.
Ovarian Cancer Risk Doubled by Estrogen-Only HRT
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
FROM ASCO 2024
MDs’ One-Word Summary of Long COVID Progress: ‘Frustration’
Stuart Malcolm, MD, a primary care physician who practices in Oregon and northern California, started seeing patients with long COVID early in the pandemic. Back then, he was frustrated by the obstacles and lack of standard diagnostic tests and treatments. Four years later, well, he still is.
“Something I learned the last few years is the logistics to get people care is really, really hard,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration. It’s mostly frustration.”
For long COVID doctors and patients, there has been little to no progress addressing the challenges, leaving many discouraged. Researchers and clinicians now have a greater understanding of what health agencies formally call post-COVID condition, but the wide spectrum of symptoms, slow progress in launching pharmacologic clinical trials, and the research toward understanding the underlying causes mean standardized diagnostic tests and definitive treatments remain elusive.
“The frustration is that we aren’t able to help everyone with our current knowledge base. And I think the frustration lies not just with us physicians but also with patients because they’re at the point where if they tried everything, literally everything and haven’t gotten better,” said Zijian Chen, MD, director of the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City.
Wanted: More Funding, More Doctors, More Clinics
Between 10% and 20% of the estimated hundreds of millions of people infected worldwide with SARS-CoV-2 in the first 2 years went on to develop long-term symptoms. While many recover over time, doctors who have treated long COVID since 2020 said they see some patients still wrestling with the condition after 4 years.
The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Household Pulse Survey, taken between March 5 and April 1, 2024, estimated that nearly 7% of the adult population — more than 18 million people — currently have long COVID. Data from other countries also suggest that millions have been living with long COVID for years now, and hundreds of thousands have seen their day-to-day activities significantly affected.
There is an urgent need for more funding, long COVID clinicians, multidisciplinary clinics, and education for non–long COVID physicians and specialists, doctors said. Instead, funding remains limited, clinics are closing, wait times are “horrendously long,” patients are left in limbo, and physicians are burning out.
“What’s changed in some ways is that there’s even less access to COVID rehab, which sounds crazy because there was very little to begin with,” said Alexandra Rendely, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician with the interdisciplinary Toronto Rehab, a part of the University Health Network of teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
“Patients are still being diagnosed every day, yet the resources available are becoming less and less.”
COVID-19 money earmarked during the pandemic was mostly limited to temporary emergency measures. As those funds dwindled, governments and institutions have decreased financial support. The Long COVID Moonshot campaign, organized by patients with long COVID, is pushing Congress to support $1 billion in annual research funding to close the financial chasm.
The Clinical Trial Conundrum
While long COVID clinics have come a long way in helping patients, gaps remain. Doctors may be unwilling to prescribe off-label treatments without proper clinical trials due to the potential risks and liabilities involved or due to the controversial or unconventional nature of the therapies, said Dr. Malcolm, who left his primary care practice more than 2 years ago to focus on long COVID.
In the absence of standard treatments, Dr. Malcolm and other doctors said they must take a trial-and-error approach in treating patients with long COVID that centers on addressing symptoms and not the underlying condition.
“There are actually a lot of treatments and a lot of them are not curative, but they can help people,” he said.
Dr. Malcolm, who is a medical director at Real Time Health Monitoring, a private clinic in the San Francisco Bay Area that specializes in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), said it was important for him to be with a clinical team that understood and was supportive of his treatment decisions and was able to offer clinical support for those treatments if needed.
For physicians looking for clinical data before prescribing certain medications, the wait may be long. More than $1.5 billion in US federal funding has been earmarked to study long COVID, but the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has faced criticism from patients and scientists alike for its slow progress and emphasis on observational studies instead of research that could unravel the biological roots of long COVID. Among the clinical trials announced by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative, only a handful involve studying pharmaceutical treatments.
A 2023 editorial published in The Lancet called out the “dismal state of clinical research relative to the substantial burden of [long COVID]” and said, “we are clearly lacking tested pharmacological interventions that treat the underlying pathophysiology.” At the time of publication, it noted that of the 386 long COVID trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 12 were actually testing pharmacologic interventions.
There are also diagnostic and insurance barriers. The specialized tests that can detect long COVID anomalies are neither commonly known by primary care practitioners nor easily requested at the local lab, can be expensive, and are typically not covered by insurance, Dr. Malcolm explained.
Patients with long COVID also have the added barrier of being unable to advocate as easily because of their energy limitations, doctors said. Patients may appear outwardly fine, but fatigue and brain fog are among the many problems that cannot be measured in appearances. The condition has upended lives, some losing jobs, even homes, and the mental toll is why there is a “not insignificant” suicide rate.
One Patient’s 4-Year Journey
Charlie McCone, 34, used to be a tennis player and an active musician. But he’s spent the past 4 years mostly housebound, grappling with the aftermath of a SARS-CoV-2 infection he contracted in March 2020. He went from biking daily to work 10 miles and back to having at most 2 hours of energy per day.
In the first year alone, Mr. McCone saw more than two dozen doctors and specialists. The conditions now associated with long COVID, like ME/CFS, mast cell activation syndrome (a condition in which a patient experiences episodes of allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing), or dysautonomia (conditions that affect the autonomic nervous system, which controls automatic processes in the body) were not on physicians’ radars.
Then in 2021, he became bedbound for more than half a year after a Delta variant reinfection. He developed neurologic symptoms, including incapacitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise (where symptoms worsened after minimal physical or mental activity), left-sided weakness, and cognitive impairment. He stopped working altogether. But the worst was the shortness of breath he felt 24/7, even at rest. A battery of lab tests revealed nothing abnormal. He tried numerous drugs and the classic respiratory treatments.
Mr. McCone eventually connected with Dr. Malcolm over X and developed what he describes as an effective patient-doctor collaboration. When studies came out suggesting microclots were a common issue with patients with long COVID and positive outcomes were reported from anticoagulant therapy, they knew it could be one of the answers.
“After 3 weeks on [the antiplatelet drug], I was like, oh my god, my lungs are finally opening up,” said Mr. McCone. He has taken the medication for more than a year and a half, and some days he doesn’t even think about his respiratory symptoms.
“That trial-and-error process is just really long and hard and costly,” said Dr. Malcolm.
Today, fatigue and cognitive stamina are Mr. McCone’s main challenges, and he is far from recovered.
“[I had a] very fulfilling, happy life and now, it’s hard to think about. I’ve come a long way with my mental health and all this, but I’ve lost 4 years,” Mr. McCone said. “The prospect of me being here when I’m 40 seems very real ... so it’s pretty devastating.”
Lessons Learned, Hope Amid Ongoing Research
Despite the daunting obstacle, doctors said the science has come a long way for a new disease. We now know long COVID is likely caused by a combination of triggers, including viral reservoir in the tissue, inflammation, autoimmunity, and microclots; severity of infection is not necessarily an accurate risk factor predictor — long COVID can strike even those who had a mild infection; upward of 200 symptoms have been identified; and we know more about potential biomarkers that could lead to better diagnostic tools.
Unlike many other diseases and conditions with standard treatment protocols, long COVID treatments are typically aimed at addressing individual symptoms.
“It is very detailed and individualized to the patient’s specific symptoms and to the patient’s specific needs,” Dr. Rendely said. Symptoms can also fluctuate, relapse, or wax and wane, for example, so what ails a patient at their first doctor’s appointment could be completely different at the next appointment 2 months later.
Doctors are still hopeful the RECOVER research, which includes trials that look at autonomic and cognitive dysfunctions, will pave the way for more effective long COVID therapies. In Canada, Dr. Rendely is also eying the RECLAIM trial that is currently testing the effectiveness of pentoxifylline, which helps blood flow, and ibudilast, an anti-inflammatory drug.
Doctors are also hopeful when they see patients who have made “tremendous gains” or even full recoveries through their clinics. “It’s a new diagnosis, so I always tell my patients to think of this as a journey because I’m learning along with you,” said Jai Marathe, MD, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.
“Now we have 4 years of experience, but at the same time, no two long COVID patients are alike.”
Long COVID has also changed the way physicians view healthcare and how they practice medicine.
“I am a completely different person than I used to be because of this illness, and I don’t even have it. That is how profoundly it has affected how I view the universe,” said Dr. Malcolm. “I’ve been doing this for 4 years, and I’m very hopeful. But I don’t think about this in terms of months anymore. I think about this in terms of years.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stuart Malcolm, MD, a primary care physician who practices in Oregon and northern California, started seeing patients with long COVID early in the pandemic. Back then, he was frustrated by the obstacles and lack of standard diagnostic tests and treatments. Four years later, well, he still is.
“Something I learned the last few years is the logistics to get people care is really, really hard,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration. It’s mostly frustration.”
For long COVID doctors and patients, there has been little to no progress addressing the challenges, leaving many discouraged. Researchers and clinicians now have a greater understanding of what health agencies formally call post-COVID condition, but the wide spectrum of symptoms, slow progress in launching pharmacologic clinical trials, and the research toward understanding the underlying causes mean standardized diagnostic tests and definitive treatments remain elusive.
“The frustration is that we aren’t able to help everyone with our current knowledge base. And I think the frustration lies not just with us physicians but also with patients because they’re at the point where if they tried everything, literally everything and haven’t gotten better,” said Zijian Chen, MD, director of the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City.
Wanted: More Funding, More Doctors, More Clinics
Between 10% and 20% of the estimated hundreds of millions of people infected worldwide with SARS-CoV-2 in the first 2 years went on to develop long-term symptoms. While many recover over time, doctors who have treated long COVID since 2020 said they see some patients still wrestling with the condition after 4 years.
The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Household Pulse Survey, taken between March 5 and April 1, 2024, estimated that nearly 7% of the adult population — more than 18 million people — currently have long COVID. Data from other countries also suggest that millions have been living with long COVID for years now, and hundreds of thousands have seen their day-to-day activities significantly affected.
There is an urgent need for more funding, long COVID clinicians, multidisciplinary clinics, and education for non–long COVID physicians and specialists, doctors said. Instead, funding remains limited, clinics are closing, wait times are “horrendously long,” patients are left in limbo, and physicians are burning out.
“What’s changed in some ways is that there’s even less access to COVID rehab, which sounds crazy because there was very little to begin with,” said Alexandra Rendely, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician with the interdisciplinary Toronto Rehab, a part of the University Health Network of teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
“Patients are still being diagnosed every day, yet the resources available are becoming less and less.”
COVID-19 money earmarked during the pandemic was mostly limited to temporary emergency measures. As those funds dwindled, governments and institutions have decreased financial support. The Long COVID Moonshot campaign, organized by patients with long COVID, is pushing Congress to support $1 billion in annual research funding to close the financial chasm.
The Clinical Trial Conundrum
While long COVID clinics have come a long way in helping patients, gaps remain. Doctors may be unwilling to prescribe off-label treatments without proper clinical trials due to the potential risks and liabilities involved or due to the controversial or unconventional nature of the therapies, said Dr. Malcolm, who left his primary care practice more than 2 years ago to focus on long COVID.
In the absence of standard treatments, Dr. Malcolm and other doctors said they must take a trial-and-error approach in treating patients with long COVID that centers on addressing symptoms and not the underlying condition.
“There are actually a lot of treatments and a lot of them are not curative, but they can help people,” he said.
Dr. Malcolm, who is a medical director at Real Time Health Monitoring, a private clinic in the San Francisco Bay Area that specializes in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), said it was important for him to be with a clinical team that understood and was supportive of his treatment decisions and was able to offer clinical support for those treatments if needed.
For physicians looking for clinical data before prescribing certain medications, the wait may be long. More than $1.5 billion in US federal funding has been earmarked to study long COVID, but the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has faced criticism from patients and scientists alike for its slow progress and emphasis on observational studies instead of research that could unravel the biological roots of long COVID. Among the clinical trials announced by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative, only a handful involve studying pharmaceutical treatments.
A 2023 editorial published in The Lancet called out the “dismal state of clinical research relative to the substantial burden of [long COVID]” and said, “we are clearly lacking tested pharmacological interventions that treat the underlying pathophysiology.” At the time of publication, it noted that of the 386 long COVID trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 12 were actually testing pharmacologic interventions.
There are also diagnostic and insurance barriers. The specialized tests that can detect long COVID anomalies are neither commonly known by primary care practitioners nor easily requested at the local lab, can be expensive, and are typically not covered by insurance, Dr. Malcolm explained.
Patients with long COVID also have the added barrier of being unable to advocate as easily because of their energy limitations, doctors said. Patients may appear outwardly fine, but fatigue and brain fog are among the many problems that cannot be measured in appearances. The condition has upended lives, some losing jobs, even homes, and the mental toll is why there is a “not insignificant” suicide rate.
One Patient’s 4-Year Journey
Charlie McCone, 34, used to be a tennis player and an active musician. But he’s spent the past 4 years mostly housebound, grappling with the aftermath of a SARS-CoV-2 infection he contracted in March 2020. He went from biking daily to work 10 miles and back to having at most 2 hours of energy per day.
In the first year alone, Mr. McCone saw more than two dozen doctors and specialists. The conditions now associated with long COVID, like ME/CFS, mast cell activation syndrome (a condition in which a patient experiences episodes of allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing), or dysautonomia (conditions that affect the autonomic nervous system, which controls automatic processes in the body) were not on physicians’ radars.
Then in 2021, he became bedbound for more than half a year after a Delta variant reinfection. He developed neurologic symptoms, including incapacitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise (where symptoms worsened after minimal physical or mental activity), left-sided weakness, and cognitive impairment. He stopped working altogether. But the worst was the shortness of breath he felt 24/7, even at rest. A battery of lab tests revealed nothing abnormal. He tried numerous drugs and the classic respiratory treatments.
Mr. McCone eventually connected with Dr. Malcolm over X and developed what he describes as an effective patient-doctor collaboration. When studies came out suggesting microclots were a common issue with patients with long COVID and positive outcomes were reported from anticoagulant therapy, they knew it could be one of the answers.
“After 3 weeks on [the antiplatelet drug], I was like, oh my god, my lungs are finally opening up,” said Mr. McCone. He has taken the medication for more than a year and a half, and some days he doesn’t even think about his respiratory symptoms.
“That trial-and-error process is just really long and hard and costly,” said Dr. Malcolm.
Today, fatigue and cognitive stamina are Mr. McCone’s main challenges, and he is far from recovered.
“[I had a] very fulfilling, happy life and now, it’s hard to think about. I’ve come a long way with my mental health and all this, but I’ve lost 4 years,” Mr. McCone said. “The prospect of me being here when I’m 40 seems very real ... so it’s pretty devastating.”
Lessons Learned, Hope Amid Ongoing Research
Despite the daunting obstacle, doctors said the science has come a long way for a new disease. We now know long COVID is likely caused by a combination of triggers, including viral reservoir in the tissue, inflammation, autoimmunity, and microclots; severity of infection is not necessarily an accurate risk factor predictor — long COVID can strike even those who had a mild infection; upward of 200 symptoms have been identified; and we know more about potential biomarkers that could lead to better diagnostic tools.
Unlike many other diseases and conditions with standard treatment protocols, long COVID treatments are typically aimed at addressing individual symptoms.
“It is very detailed and individualized to the patient’s specific symptoms and to the patient’s specific needs,” Dr. Rendely said. Symptoms can also fluctuate, relapse, or wax and wane, for example, so what ails a patient at their first doctor’s appointment could be completely different at the next appointment 2 months later.
Doctors are still hopeful the RECOVER research, which includes trials that look at autonomic and cognitive dysfunctions, will pave the way for more effective long COVID therapies. In Canada, Dr. Rendely is also eying the RECLAIM trial that is currently testing the effectiveness of pentoxifylline, which helps blood flow, and ibudilast, an anti-inflammatory drug.
Doctors are also hopeful when they see patients who have made “tremendous gains” or even full recoveries through their clinics. “It’s a new diagnosis, so I always tell my patients to think of this as a journey because I’m learning along with you,” said Jai Marathe, MD, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.
“Now we have 4 years of experience, but at the same time, no two long COVID patients are alike.”
Long COVID has also changed the way physicians view healthcare and how they practice medicine.
“I am a completely different person than I used to be because of this illness, and I don’t even have it. That is how profoundly it has affected how I view the universe,” said Dr. Malcolm. “I’ve been doing this for 4 years, and I’m very hopeful. But I don’t think about this in terms of months anymore. I think about this in terms of years.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stuart Malcolm, MD, a primary care physician who practices in Oregon and northern California, started seeing patients with long COVID early in the pandemic. Back then, he was frustrated by the obstacles and lack of standard diagnostic tests and treatments. Four years later, well, he still is.
“Something I learned the last few years is the logistics to get people care is really, really hard,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration. It’s mostly frustration.”
For long COVID doctors and patients, there has been little to no progress addressing the challenges, leaving many discouraged. Researchers and clinicians now have a greater understanding of what health agencies formally call post-COVID condition, but the wide spectrum of symptoms, slow progress in launching pharmacologic clinical trials, and the research toward understanding the underlying causes mean standardized diagnostic tests and definitive treatments remain elusive.
“The frustration is that we aren’t able to help everyone with our current knowledge base. And I think the frustration lies not just with us physicians but also with patients because they’re at the point where if they tried everything, literally everything and haven’t gotten better,” said Zijian Chen, MD, director of the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City.
Wanted: More Funding, More Doctors, More Clinics
Between 10% and 20% of the estimated hundreds of millions of people infected worldwide with SARS-CoV-2 in the first 2 years went on to develop long-term symptoms. While many recover over time, doctors who have treated long COVID since 2020 said they see some patients still wrestling with the condition after 4 years.
The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Household Pulse Survey, taken between March 5 and April 1, 2024, estimated that nearly 7% of the adult population — more than 18 million people — currently have long COVID. Data from other countries also suggest that millions have been living with long COVID for years now, and hundreds of thousands have seen their day-to-day activities significantly affected.
There is an urgent need for more funding, long COVID clinicians, multidisciplinary clinics, and education for non–long COVID physicians and specialists, doctors said. Instead, funding remains limited, clinics are closing, wait times are “horrendously long,” patients are left in limbo, and physicians are burning out.
“What’s changed in some ways is that there’s even less access to COVID rehab, which sounds crazy because there was very little to begin with,” said Alexandra Rendely, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician with the interdisciplinary Toronto Rehab, a part of the University Health Network of teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
“Patients are still being diagnosed every day, yet the resources available are becoming less and less.”
COVID-19 money earmarked during the pandemic was mostly limited to temporary emergency measures. As those funds dwindled, governments and institutions have decreased financial support. The Long COVID Moonshot campaign, organized by patients with long COVID, is pushing Congress to support $1 billion in annual research funding to close the financial chasm.
The Clinical Trial Conundrum
While long COVID clinics have come a long way in helping patients, gaps remain. Doctors may be unwilling to prescribe off-label treatments without proper clinical trials due to the potential risks and liabilities involved or due to the controversial or unconventional nature of the therapies, said Dr. Malcolm, who left his primary care practice more than 2 years ago to focus on long COVID.
In the absence of standard treatments, Dr. Malcolm and other doctors said they must take a trial-and-error approach in treating patients with long COVID that centers on addressing symptoms and not the underlying condition.
“There are actually a lot of treatments and a lot of them are not curative, but they can help people,” he said.
Dr. Malcolm, who is a medical director at Real Time Health Monitoring, a private clinic in the San Francisco Bay Area that specializes in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), said it was important for him to be with a clinical team that understood and was supportive of his treatment decisions and was able to offer clinical support for those treatments if needed.
For physicians looking for clinical data before prescribing certain medications, the wait may be long. More than $1.5 billion in US federal funding has been earmarked to study long COVID, but the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has faced criticism from patients and scientists alike for its slow progress and emphasis on observational studies instead of research that could unravel the biological roots of long COVID. Among the clinical trials announced by the NIH’s RECOVER initiative, only a handful involve studying pharmaceutical treatments.
A 2023 editorial published in The Lancet called out the “dismal state of clinical research relative to the substantial burden of [long COVID]” and said, “we are clearly lacking tested pharmacological interventions that treat the underlying pathophysiology.” At the time of publication, it noted that of the 386 long COVID trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 12 were actually testing pharmacologic interventions.
There are also diagnostic and insurance barriers. The specialized tests that can detect long COVID anomalies are neither commonly known by primary care practitioners nor easily requested at the local lab, can be expensive, and are typically not covered by insurance, Dr. Malcolm explained.
Patients with long COVID also have the added barrier of being unable to advocate as easily because of their energy limitations, doctors said. Patients may appear outwardly fine, but fatigue and brain fog are among the many problems that cannot be measured in appearances. The condition has upended lives, some losing jobs, even homes, and the mental toll is why there is a “not insignificant” suicide rate.
One Patient’s 4-Year Journey
Charlie McCone, 34, used to be a tennis player and an active musician. But he’s spent the past 4 years mostly housebound, grappling with the aftermath of a SARS-CoV-2 infection he contracted in March 2020. He went from biking daily to work 10 miles and back to having at most 2 hours of energy per day.
In the first year alone, Mr. McCone saw more than two dozen doctors and specialists. The conditions now associated with long COVID, like ME/CFS, mast cell activation syndrome (a condition in which a patient experiences episodes of allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing), or dysautonomia (conditions that affect the autonomic nervous system, which controls automatic processes in the body) were not on physicians’ radars.
Then in 2021, he became bedbound for more than half a year after a Delta variant reinfection. He developed neurologic symptoms, including incapacitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise (where symptoms worsened after minimal physical or mental activity), left-sided weakness, and cognitive impairment. He stopped working altogether. But the worst was the shortness of breath he felt 24/7, even at rest. A battery of lab tests revealed nothing abnormal. He tried numerous drugs and the classic respiratory treatments.
Mr. McCone eventually connected with Dr. Malcolm over X and developed what he describes as an effective patient-doctor collaboration. When studies came out suggesting microclots were a common issue with patients with long COVID and positive outcomes were reported from anticoagulant therapy, they knew it could be one of the answers.
“After 3 weeks on [the antiplatelet drug], I was like, oh my god, my lungs are finally opening up,” said Mr. McCone. He has taken the medication for more than a year and a half, and some days he doesn’t even think about his respiratory symptoms.
“That trial-and-error process is just really long and hard and costly,” said Dr. Malcolm.
Today, fatigue and cognitive stamina are Mr. McCone’s main challenges, and he is far from recovered.
“[I had a] very fulfilling, happy life and now, it’s hard to think about. I’ve come a long way with my mental health and all this, but I’ve lost 4 years,” Mr. McCone said. “The prospect of me being here when I’m 40 seems very real ... so it’s pretty devastating.”
Lessons Learned, Hope Amid Ongoing Research
Despite the daunting obstacle, doctors said the science has come a long way for a new disease. We now know long COVID is likely caused by a combination of triggers, including viral reservoir in the tissue, inflammation, autoimmunity, and microclots; severity of infection is not necessarily an accurate risk factor predictor — long COVID can strike even those who had a mild infection; upward of 200 symptoms have been identified; and we know more about potential biomarkers that could lead to better diagnostic tools.
Unlike many other diseases and conditions with standard treatment protocols, long COVID treatments are typically aimed at addressing individual symptoms.
“It is very detailed and individualized to the patient’s specific symptoms and to the patient’s specific needs,” Dr. Rendely said. Symptoms can also fluctuate, relapse, or wax and wane, for example, so what ails a patient at their first doctor’s appointment could be completely different at the next appointment 2 months later.
Doctors are still hopeful the RECOVER research, which includes trials that look at autonomic and cognitive dysfunctions, will pave the way for more effective long COVID therapies. In Canada, Dr. Rendely is also eying the RECLAIM trial that is currently testing the effectiveness of pentoxifylline, which helps blood flow, and ibudilast, an anti-inflammatory drug.
Doctors are also hopeful when they see patients who have made “tremendous gains” or even full recoveries through their clinics. “It’s a new diagnosis, so I always tell my patients to think of this as a journey because I’m learning along with you,” said Jai Marathe, MD, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.
“Now we have 4 years of experience, but at the same time, no two long COVID patients are alike.”
Long COVID has also changed the way physicians view healthcare and how they practice medicine.
“I am a completely different person than I used to be because of this illness, and I don’t even have it. That is how profoundly it has affected how I view the universe,” said Dr. Malcolm. “I’ve been doing this for 4 years, and I’m very hopeful. But I don’t think about this in terms of months anymore. I think about this in terms of years.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronotherapy: Why Timing Drugs to Our Body Clocks May Work
Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?
A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.
The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.
“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.
“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research
Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.
That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.
But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.
Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.
“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”
So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”
Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.
The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.
“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”
The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
Looking Beyond Blood Pressure
What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.
An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.
A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.
Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.
Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.
In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
Timing and the Immune System
Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.
“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.
“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”
Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?
Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:
Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.
In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)
If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”
Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?
A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.
The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.
“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.
“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research
Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.
That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.
But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.
Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.
“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”
So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”
Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.
The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.
“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”
The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
Looking Beyond Blood Pressure
What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.
An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.
A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.
Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.
Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.
In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
Timing and the Immune System
Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.
“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.
“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”
Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?
Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:
Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.
In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)
If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”
Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?
A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.
The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.
“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.
“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research
Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.
That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.
But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.
Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.
“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”
So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”
Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.
The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.
“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”
The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
Looking Beyond Blood Pressure
What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.
An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.
A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.
Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.
Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.
In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
Timing and the Immune System
Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.
“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.
“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”
Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?
Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:
Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.
In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)
If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”
Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Appendix: Is It ’Useless,’ or a Safe House and Immune Training Ground?
When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.
But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.
“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.
To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.
What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection
The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.
Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.
Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.
For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.
One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria
Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.
Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.
This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.
The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.
If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.
The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
The Contentious Connections
The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.
Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.
Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.
Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.
Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
How Should Doctors View the Appendix?
Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.
“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.
The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.
What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.
But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.
“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.
To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.
What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection
The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.
Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.
Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.
For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.
One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria
Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.
Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.
This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.
The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.
If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.
The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
The Contentious Connections
The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.
Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.
Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.
Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.
Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
How Should Doctors View the Appendix?
Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.
“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.
The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.
What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.
But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.
“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.
To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.
What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection
The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.
Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.
Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.
For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.
One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria
Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.
Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.
This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.
The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.
If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.
The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
The Contentious Connections
The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.
Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.
Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.
Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.
Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
How Should Doctors View the Appendix?
Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.
“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.
The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.
What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
T-DXd Moves Toward First Line for HER2-Low Metastatic BC
HER2-low cancers express levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 that are below standard thresholds for HER2-positive immunohistochemistry. In 2022, results from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial showed T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) to be an effective second-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.
The highly awaited new findings, from the manufacturer-sponsored, open-label Phase 3 DESTINY-Breast06 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, Illinois.
The findings not only definitively establish a role for T-DXd earlier in the treatment sequence for HER2-low cancers, they also suggest benefit in a group of patients designated for the purposes of this trial to be HER2-ultralow. These patients have cancers with only faintly detectable HER2 expression on currently used assays (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 17; abstr LBA 1000]).
In a separate set of findings also presented at ASCO, from the randomized phase 1B open-label study, DESTINY-Breast07, T-Dxd showed efficacy in previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients both alone and in combination with the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech).
DESTINY-Breast06 Methods and Results
The DESTINY-Breast06 findings were presented by lead investigator Guiseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Curigliano and his colleagues randomized 866 patients with metastatic breast cancer: 436 to intravenous T-Dxd and 430 to the investigator’s choice of capecitabine, nab-paclitaxel, or paclitaxel chemotherapy. The investigators chose capecitabine 60% of the time.
Most patients had cancers classed as HER2 low (immunohistochemistry 1+ or 2+), while 153 had cancers classed by investigators as HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with membrane staining or IHC under 1+). Patients enrolled in the study were those whose disease had progressed after endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy. Patients’ median age was between 57 and 58, and all were chemotherapy-naive in the metastatic breast cancer setting.
The main outcome of the study was median progression-free survival in the HER2-low group. T-Dxd was seen improving progression-free survival, with median 13.2 months vs. 8.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.74; P < .0001). In the intention-to-treat population, which included the HER2 ultralow patients, the benefit was the same (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .0001). This suggested that T-DXd is also effective in these patients, and it will be extremely important going forward to identify the lowest level of HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancers that can still benefit from therapy with T-DxD, Dr. Curigliano said.
Overall survival could not be assessed in the study cohort because complete data were not yet available, Dr. Curigliano said. However, trends pointed to an advantage for T-DXd, and tumor response rates were markedly higher with T-DXd: 57% compared with 31% for standard chemotherapy in the full cohort.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the T-Dxd–treated patients, with 11% of that arm developing drug-related interstitial lung disease, and three patients dying of it. Five patients in the T-DXd arm died of adverse events deemed treatment-related, and none died from treatment-related adverse events in the standard chemotherapy arm. Altogether 11 patients died in the T-DXd arm and 6 in the chemotherapy arm.
Clinical Implications of DESTINY-Breast06
The DESTINY-Breast06 data show that “we have to again change how we think about HER2 expression. Even very low levels of HER2 expression matter, and they can be leveraged to improve the treatment for our patients,” said Ian Krop, MD, PhD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, during the session where the results were presented.
But T-DXd may not be an appropriate first choice for all patients, especially given the safety concerns associated with T-DXd, he continued. With overall survival and quality-of-life data still lacking, clinicians will have to determine on a case-by-case basis who should get T-DXd in the first line.
“For patients who have symptomatic metastatic disease, who need a response to address those symptoms, those in whom you think chemotherapy may not work as well because they had, for example, a short recurrence interval after their adjuvant chemotherapy — using T-DXd in that first-line setting makes perfect sense to take advantage of the substantially higher response rate compared to chemo,” Dr. Krop said. “But for patients who have asymptomatic low burdens of disease, it seems very reasonable to consider using a well-tolerated chemotherapy like capecitabine in the first line, and then using T-DXd in the second line.”
In an interview, Erica Mayer, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said patient choice will also matter in determining whether T-DXd is a first-line option. The known toxicity of T-DXd was underscored by the latest findings, she noted, while capecitabine, one of the chemotherapy choices in the control arm of the study, “really reflects what the majority of breast cancer doctors tend to offer, both because of the efficacy of the drug, but also because it’s oral, it’s well tolerated, and you don’t lose your hair.”
DESTINY-Breast07 Results
The DESTINY-Breast07 findings, from a Phase 1B open-label trial measuring safety and tolerability, were presented by Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, of Université Paris Saclay in Paris, France. Dr. Andre and his colleagues presented the first data comparing T-DXd monotherapy and T-DXd with pertuzumab — a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 — as a first-line treatment in patients with HER2-overexpressing (immunohistochemistry 3 and above) metastatic breast cancer. (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 16; abstr 1009]).
Current first-line standard of care for these patients is pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, based on results from the 2015 CLEOPATRA trial. T-DXd is currently approved as a second-line treatment.
Dr. Andre and his colleagues randomized 75 patients to monotherapy with T-DXd and 50 to combined therapy, with a median follow-up of 2 years.
After 1 year of treatment, combination of T-DXd and pertuzumab was seen to be associated with a progression-free survival of 89% at 1 year (80% CI, 81.9-93.9), compared with 80% in patients treated with T-DXd alone (80% CI, 73.7-86.1). Objective tumor response rate was 84% for the combined therapy at 12 weeks, with 20% of patients seeing a complete response, compared with 76% and 8%, respectively, for monotherapy.
As in the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, adverse events were high, with interstitial lung disease seen in 9% of patients in the monotherapy group and in 14% of the combined-therapy patients, although no treatment-related deaths occurred.
A randomized phase 3 trial, DESTINY Breast09, will now compare the monotherapy and the combined therapy with standard care.
T-DXd has seen a rapidly expanding role in treating breast and other solid tumors. The DESTINY Breast06 findings will move up its place in the treatment algorithm for metastatic breast cancer, “allowing us to now offer T-DXd as the first chemotherapy choice for patients who are making that transition to chemotherapy over many of the traditional provider choices that we previously have offered,” Dr. Mayer said.
The results “support the use of not only this specific agent, but also the concept of antibody drug conjugates as a very effective way to treat malignancy,” she added.
Dr. Curigliano reported receiving speaker’s fees, research funding, and other support from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, among other companies, as did most of his co-authors, of whom three were AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Fabrice disclosed receiving research funding, travel compensation, and/or advisory fees from AstraZeneca and other entities, as did several of his co-authors. Two of his co-authors were employed by AstraZeneca and Roche, manufacturers of the study drugs. Dr. Krop and Dr. Mayer disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and others.
HER2-low cancers express levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 that are below standard thresholds for HER2-positive immunohistochemistry. In 2022, results from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial showed T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) to be an effective second-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.
The highly awaited new findings, from the manufacturer-sponsored, open-label Phase 3 DESTINY-Breast06 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, Illinois.
The findings not only definitively establish a role for T-DXd earlier in the treatment sequence for HER2-low cancers, they also suggest benefit in a group of patients designated for the purposes of this trial to be HER2-ultralow. These patients have cancers with only faintly detectable HER2 expression on currently used assays (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 17; abstr LBA 1000]).
In a separate set of findings also presented at ASCO, from the randomized phase 1B open-label study, DESTINY-Breast07, T-Dxd showed efficacy in previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients both alone and in combination with the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech).
DESTINY-Breast06 Methods and Results
The DESTINY-Breast06 findings were presented by lead investigator Guiseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Curigliano and his colleagues randomized 866 patients with metastatic breast cancer: 436 to intravenous T-Dxd and 430 to the investigator’s choice of capecitabine, nab-paclitaxel, or paclitaxel chemotherapy. The investigators chose capecitabine 60% of the time.
Most patients had cancers classed as HER2 low (immunohistochemistry 1+ or 2+), while 153 had cancers classed by investigators as HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with membrane staining or IHC under 1+). Patients enrolled in the study were those whose disease had progressed after endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy. Patients’ median age was between 57 and 58, and all were chemotherapy-naive in the metastatic breast cancer setting.
The main outcome of the study was median progression-free survival in the HER2-low group. T-Dxd was seen improving progression-free survival, with median 13.2 months vs. 8.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.74; P < .0001). In the intention-to-treat population, which included the HER2 ultralow patients, the benefit was the same (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .0001). This suggested that T-DXd is also effective in these patients, and it will be extremely important going forward to identify the lowest level of HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancers that can still benefit from therapy with T-DxD, Dr. Curigliano said.
Overall survival could not be assessed in the study cohort because complete data were not yet available, Dr. Curigliano said. However, trends pointed to an advantage for T-DXd, and tumor response rates were markedly higher with T-DXd: 57% compared with 31% for standard chemotherapy in the full cohort.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the T-Dxd–treated patients, with 11% of that arm developing drug-related interstitial lung disease, and three patients dying of it. Five patients in the T-DXd arm died of adverse events deemed treatment-related, and none died from treatment-related adverse events in the standard chemotherapy arm. Altogether 11 patients died in the T-DXd arm and 6 in the chemotherapy arm.
Clinical Implications of DESTINY-Breast06
The DESTINY-Breast06 data show that “we have to again change how we think about HER2 expression. Even very low levels of HER2 expression matter, and they can be leveraged to improve the treatment for our patients,” said Ian Krop, MD, PhD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, during the session where the results were presented.
But T-DXd may not be an appropriate first choice for all patients, especially given the safety concerns associated with T-DXd, he continued. With overall survival and quality-of-life data still lacking, clinicians will have to determine on a case-by-case basis who should get T-DXd in the first line.
“For patients who have symptomatic metastatic disease, who need a response to address those symptoms, those in whom you think chemotherapy may not work as well because they had, for example, a short recurrence interval after their adjuvant chemotherapy — using T-DXd in that first-line setting makes perfect sense to take advantage of the substantially higher response rate compared to chemo,” Dr. Krop said. “But for patients who have asymptomatic low burdens of disease, it seems very reasonable to consider using a well-tolerated chemotherapy like capecitabine in the first line, and then using T-DXd in the second line.”
In an interview, Erica Mayer, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said patient choice will also matter in determining whether T-DXd is a first-line option. The known toxicity of T-DXd was underscored by the latest findings, she noted, while capecitabine, one of the chemotherapy choices in the control arm of the study, “really reflects what the majority of breast cancer doctors tend to offer, both because of the efficacy of the drug, but also because it’s oral, it’s well tolerated, and you don’t lose your hair.”
DESTINY-Breast07 Results
The DESTINY-Breast07 findings, from a Phase 1B open-label trial measuring safety and tolerability, were presented by Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, of Université Paris Saclay in Paris, France. Dr. Andre and his colleagues presented the first data comparing T-DXd monotherapy and T-DXd with pertuzumab — a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 — as a first-line treatment in patients with HER2-overexpressing (immunohistochemistry 3 and above) metastatic breast cancer. (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 16; abstr 1009]).
Current first-line standard of care for these patients is pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, based on results from the 2015 CLEOPATRA trial. T-DXd is currently approved as a second-line treatment.
Dr. Andre and his colleagues randomized 75 patients to monotherapy with T-DXd and 50 to combined therapy, with a median follow-up of 2 years.
After 1 year of treatment, combination of T-DXd and pertuzumab was seen to be associated with a progression-free survival of 89% at 1 year (80% CI, 81.9-93.9), compared with 80% in patients treated with T-DXd alone (80% CI, 73.7-86.1). Objective tumor response rate was 84% for the combined therapy at 12 weeks, with 20% of patients seeing a complete response, compared with 76% and 8%, respectively, for monotherapy.
As in the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, adverse events were high, with interstitial lung disease seen in 9% of patients in the monotherapy group and in 14% of the combined-therapy patients, although no treatment-related deaths occurred.
A randomized phase 3 trial, DESTINY Breast09, will now compare the monotherapy and the combined therapy with standard care.
T-DXd has seen a rapidly expanding role in treating breast and other solid tumors. The DESTINY Breast06 findings will move up its place in the treatment algorithm for metastatic breast cancer, “allowing us to now offer T-DXd as the first chemotherapy choice for patients who are making that transition to chemotherapy over many of the traditional provider choices that we previously have offered,” Dr. Mayer said.
The results “support the use of not only this specific agent, but also the concept of antibody drug conjugates as a very effective way to treat malignancy,” she added.
Dr. Curigliano reported receiving speaker’s fees, research funding, and other support from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, among other companies, as did most of his co-authors, of whom three were AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Fabrice disclosed receiving research funding, travel compensation, and/or advisory fees from AstraZeneca and other entities, as did several of his co-authors. Two of his co-authors were employed by AstraZeneca and Roche, manufacturers of the study drugs. Dr. Krop and Dr. Mayer disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and others.
HER2-low cancers express levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 that are below standard thresholds for HER2-positive immunohistochemistry. In 2022, results from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial showed T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) to be an effective second-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.
The highly awaited new findings, from the manufacturer-sponsored, open-label Phase 3 DESTINY-Breast06 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, Illinois.
The findings not only definitively establish a role for T-DXd earlier in the treatment sequence for HER2-low cancers, they also suggest benefit in a group of patients designated for the purposes of this trial to be HER2-ultralow. These patients have cancers with only faintly detectable HER2 expression on currently used assays (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 17; abstr LBA 1000]).
In a separate set of findings also presented at ASCO, from the randomized phase 1B open-label study, DESTINY-Breast07, T-Dxd showed efficacy in previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients both alone and in combination with the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Perjeta, Genentech).
DESTINY-Breast06 Methods and Results
The DESTINY-Breast06 findings were presented by lead investigator Guiseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan and European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Curigliano and his colleagues randomized 866 patients with metastatic breast cancer: 436 to intravenous T-Dxd and 430 to the investigator’s choice of capecitabine, nab-paclitaxel, or paclitaxel chemotherapy. The investigators chose capecitabine 60% of the time.
Most patients had cancers classed as HER2 low (immunohistochemistry 1+ or 2+), while 153 had cancers classed by investigators as HER2-ultralow (IHC 0 with membrane staining or IHC under 1+). Patients enrolled in the study were those whose disease had progressed after endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy. Patients’ median age was between 57 and 58, and all were chemotherapy-naive in the metastatic breast cancer setting.
The main outcome of the study was median progression-free survival in the HER2-low group. T-Dxd was seen improving progression-free survival, with median 13.2 months vs. 8.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.74; P < .0001). In the intention-to-treat population, which included the HER2 ultralow patients, the benefit was the same (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .0001). This suggested that T-DXd is also effective in these patients, and it will be extremely important going forward to identify the lowest level of HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancers that can still benefit from therapy with T-DxD, Dr. Curigliano said.
Overall survival could not be assessed in the study cohort because complete data were not yet available, Dr. Curigliano said. However, trends pointed to an advantage for T-DXd, and tumor response rates were markedly higher with T-DXd: 57% compared with 31% for standard chemotherapy in the full cohort.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the T-Dxd–treated patients, with 11% of that arm developing drug-related interstitial lung disease, and three patients dying of it. Five patients in the T-DXd arm died of adverse events deemed treatment-related, and none died from treatment-related adverse events in the standard chemotherapy arm. Altogether 11 patients died in the T-DXd arm and 6 in the chemotherapy arm.
Clinical Implications of DESTINY-Breast06
The DESTINY-Breast06 data show that “we have to again change how we think about HER2 expression. Even very low levels of HER2 expression matter, and they can be leveraged to improve the treatment for our patients,” said Ian Krop, MD, PhD, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut, during the session where the results were presented.
But T-DXd may not be an appropriate first choice for all patients, especially given the safety concerns associated with T-DXd, he continued. With overall survival and quality-of-life data still lacking, clinicians will have to determine on a case-by-case basis who should get T-DXd in the first line.
“For patients who have symptomatic metastatic disease, who need a response to address those symptoms, those in whom you think chemotherapy may not work as well because they had, for example, a short recurrence interval after their adjuvant chemotherapy — using T-DXd in that first-line setting makes perfect sense to take advantage of the substantially higher response rate compared to chemo,” Dr. Krop said. “But for patients who have asymptomatic low burdens of disease, it seems very reasonable to consider using a well-tolerated chemotherapy like capecitabine in the first line, and then using T-DXd in the second line.”
In an interview, Erica Mayer, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said patient choice will also matter in determining whether T-DXd is a first-line option. The known toxicity of T-DXd was underscored by the latest findings, she noted, while capecitabine, one of the chemotherapy choices in the control arm of the study, “really reflects what the majority of breast cancer doctors tend to offer, both because of the efficacy of the drug, but also because it’s oral, it’s well tolerated, and you don’t lose your hair.”
DESTINY-Breast07 Results
The DESTINY-Breast07 findings, from a Phase 1B open-label trial measuring safety and tolerability, were presented by Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, of Université Paris Saclay in Paris, France. Dr. Andre and his colleagues presented the first data comparing T-DXd monotherapy and T-DXd with pertuzumab — a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 — as a first-line treatment in patients with HER2-overexpressing (immunohistochemistry 3 and above) metastatic breast cancer. (J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 [suppl 16; abstr 1009]).
Current first-line standard of care for these patients is pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, based on results from the 2015 CLEOPATRA trial. T-DXd is currently approved as a second-line treatment.
Dr. Andre and his colleagues randomized 75 patients to monotherapy with T-DXd and 50 to combined therapy, with a median follow-up of 2 years.
After 1 year of treatment, combination of T-DXd and pertuzumab was seen to be associated with a progression-free survival of 89% at 1 year (80% CI, 81.9-93.9), compared with 80% in patients treated with T-DXd alone (80% CI, 73.7-86.1). Objective tumor response rate was 84% for the combined therapy at 12 weeks, with 20% of patients seeing a complete response, compared with 76% and 8%, respectively, for monotherapy.
As in the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, adverse events were high, with interstitial lung disease seen in 9% of patients in the monotherapy group and in 14% of the combined-therapy patients, although no treatment-related deaths occurred.
A randomized phase 3 trial, DESTINY Breast09, will now compare the monotherapy and the combined therapy with standard care.
T-DXd has seen a rapidly expanding role in treating breast and other solid tumors. The DESTINY Breast06 findings will move up its place in the treatment algorithm for metastatic breast cancer, “allowing us to now offer T-DXd as the first chemotherapy choice for patients who are making that transition to chemotherapy over many of the traditional provider choices that we previously have offered,” Dr. Mayer said.
The results “support the use of not only this specific agent, but also the concept of antibody drug conjugates as a very effective way to treat malignancy,” she added.
Dr. Curigliano reported receiving speaker’s fees, research funding, and other support from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, among other companies, as did most of his co-authors, of whom three were AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Fabrice disclosed receiving research funding, travel compensation, and/or advisory fees from AstraZeneca and other entities, as did several of his co-authors. Two of his co-authors were employed by AstraZeneca and Roche, manufacturers of the study drugs. Dr. Krop and Dr. Mayer disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and others.
FROM ASCO