Patient & Survivor Care

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the 10th annual report from nonprofit the Leapfrog Group, a national nonprofit organization focused on health care safety and quality.

For five outcome measures, the safety improvements saved an estimated 16,000 lives during the 10-year period, the report said. These included two “never” events that both declined by approximately 25%: incidents of falls and trauma and incidents of objects unintentionally left in a body after surgery.

There were also decreases in three health care–associated infections, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which decreased by 22%; central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), which fell by 43%; and Clostridioides difficile infection (C. Diff), which declined by 8%.

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the report.

“Never in history have we seen across-the-board improvement in patient safety until this last decade, coinciding with the history of the [Leapfrog] Hospital Safety Grade,” said Leah Binder, president and CEO of the Leapfrog Group, in a news release. “We salute hospitals for this milestone and encourage them to accelerate their hard work saving patient lives.”

During the past decade, the report noted, hospitals have widely adopted technology and staffing strategies that can protect patients from preventable harm and death. Leapfrog cited a nearly sevenfold increase in the adoption of computerized provider order entry, which can reduce medication errors by more than 40%. 

However, federal health officials separately have reported that the pandemic may have eroded some of those gains.

The Leapfrog report also cited a recent study, published in JAMA, that found that the rates of preventable adverse events in hospitalized patients – including adverse drug events, hospital-acquired infections, postprocedure events, and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and falls – significantly declined between 2010 and 2019.

That study pointed to specific decreases in the rates of adverse events for patients admitted for myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and major surgical procedures. There were also significant drops in adverse events for all other conditions, the study found.

Quality improvement efforts targeting those four conditions might have partly accounted for the lower rates of adverse events in patients with the conditions, the study observed. But “similar interventions did not occur for most of the conditions represented in the ‘all other conditions’ group,” it said.

In a 2019 report by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the agency noted that from 2000 to 2017, there had been gains in nearly two-thirds of patient-safety measures in acute, post-acute, and ambulatory care. Hospital safety improved on nine metrics and was unchanged on three. For example, from 2014 to 2017, the number of some hospital-acquired conditions, including adverse drug events and C. Diff infections, dropped about 20%.

However, in an article this past February, officials of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) said they had observed deterioration on multiple patient-safety metrics since the start of the pandemic. For example, central line infections, which had dropped by 31% in the five years before the COVID-19 outbreak, jumped 28% in the second quarter of 2020, compared with the prior-year period.

Commenting on these developments, the CMS authors said “the fact that the pandemic degraded patient safety so quickly and severely suggests that our health care system lacks a sufficiently resilient safety culture and infrastructure.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the 10th annual report from nonprofit the Leapfrog Group, a national nonprofit organization focused on health care safety and quality.

For five outcome measures, the safety improvements saved an estimated 16,000 lives during the 10-year period, the report said. These included two “never” events that both declined by approximately 25%: incidents of falls and trauma and incidents of objects unintentionally left in a body after surgery.

There were also decreases in three health care–associated infections, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which decreased by 22%; central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), which fell by 43%; and Clostridioides difficile infection (C. Diff), which declined by 8%.

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the report.

“Never in history have we seen across-the-board improvement in patient safety until this last decade, coinciding with the history of the [Leapfrog] Hospital Safety Grade,” said Leah Binder, president and CEO of the Leapfrog Group, in a news release. “We salute hospitals for this milestone and encourage them to accelerate their hard work saving patient lives.”

During the past decade, the report noted, hospitals have widely adopted technology and staffing strategies that can protect patients from preventable harm and death. Leapfrog cited a nearly sevenfold increase in the adoption of computerized provider order entry, which can reduce medication errors by more than 40%. 

However, federal health officials separately have reported that the pandemic may have eroded some of those gains.

The Leapfrog report also cited a recent study, published in JAMA, that found that the rates of preventable adverse events in hospitalized patients – including adverse drug events, hospital-acquired infections, postprocedure events, and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and falls – significantly declined between 2010 and 2019.

That study pointed to specific decreases in the rates of adverse events for patients admitted for myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and major surgical procedures. There were also significant drops in adverse events for all other conditions, the study found.

Quality improvement efforts targeting those four conditions might have partly accounted for the lower rates of adverse events in patients with the conditions, the study observed. But “similar interventions did not occur for most of the conditions represented in the ‘all other conditions’ group,” it said.

In a 2019 report by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the agency noted that from 2000 to 2017, there had been gains in nearly two-thirds of patient-safety measures in acute, post-acute, and ambulatory care. Hospital safety improved on nine metrics and was unchanged on three. For example, from 2014 to 2017, the number of some hospital-acquired conditions, including adverse drug events and C. Diff infections, dropped about 20%.

However, in an article this past February, officials of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) said they had observed deterioration on multiple patient-safety metrics since the start of the pandemic. For example, central line infections, which had dropped by 31% in the five years before the COVID-19 outbreak, jumped 28% in the second quarter of 2020, compared with the prior-year period.

Commenting on these developments, the CMS authors said “the fact that the pandemic degraded patient safety so quickly and severely suggests that our health care system lacks a sufficiently resilient safety culture and infrastructure.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the 10th annual report from nonprofit the Leapfrog Group, a national nonprofit organization focused on health care safety and quality.

For five outcome measures, the safety improvements saved an estimated 16,000 lives during the 10-year period, the report said. These included two “never” events that both declined by approximately 25%: incidents of falls and trauma and incidents of objects unintentionally left in a body after surgery.

There were also decreases in three health care–associated infections, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which decreased by 22%; central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), which fell by 43%; and Clostridioides difficile infection (C. Diff), which declined by 8%.

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the report.

“Never in history have we seen across-the-board improvement in patient safety until this last decade, coinciding with the history of the [Leapfrog] Hospital Safety Grade,” said Leah Binder, president and CEO of the Leapfrog Group, in a news release. “We salute hospitals for this milestone and encourage them to accelerate their hard work saving patient lives.”

During the past decade, the report noted, hospitals have widely adopted technology and staffing strategies that can protect patients from preventable harm and death. Leapfrog cited a nearly sevenfold increase in the adoption of computerized provider order entry, which can reduce medication errors by more than 40%. 

However, federal health officials separately have reported that the pandemic may have eroded some of those gains.

The Leapfrog report also cited a recent study, published in JAMA, that found that the rates of preventable adverse events in hospitalized patients – including adverse drug events, hospital-acquired infections, postprocedure events, and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and falls – significantly declined between 2010 and 2019.

That study pointed to specific decreases in the rates of adverse events for patients admitted for myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and major surgical procedures. There were also significant drops in adverse events for all other conditions, the study found.

Quality improvement efforts targeting those four conditions might have partly accounted for the lower rates of adverse events in patients with the conditions, the study observed. But “similar interventions did not occur for most of the conditions represented in the ‘all other conditions’ group,” it said.

In a 2019 report by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the agency noted that from 2000 to 2017, there had been gains in nearly two-thirds of patient-safety measures in acute, post-acute, and ambulatory care. Hospital safety improved on nine metrics and was unchanged on three. For example, from 2014 to 2017, the number of some hospital-acquired conditions, including adverse drug events and C. Diff infections, dropped about 20%.

However, in an article this past February, officials of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) said they had observed deterioration on multiple patient-safety metrics since the start of the pandemic. For example, central line infections, which had dropped by 31% in the five years before the COVID-19 outbreak, jumped 28% in the second quarter of 2020, compared with the prior-year period.

Commenting on these developments, the CMS authors said “the fact that the pandemic degraded patient safety so quickly and severely suggests that our health care system lacks a sufficiently resilient safety culture and infrastructure.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As many as 40% of patients with cancer develop hiccups – often unbeknownst to their oncologists. But even if recognized, hiccups may not be treated effectively, according to a national survey of cancer care clinicians.

When poorly controlled, persistent hiccups can affect a patient’s quality of life, with 40% of survey respondents considering chronic hiccups “much more” or “somewhat more” severe than nausea and vomiting.

Overall, the findings indicate that patients with cancer who develop persistent hiccups are “truly suffering,” the authors wrote.

The survey results were published online recently in the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine.

Hiccups may simply be a nuisance for most, but these spasms can become problematic for patients with cancer, leading to sleep deprivation, fatigue, aspiration pneumonia, compromised food intake, weight loss, pain, and even death.

Hiccups can develop when the nerve that controls the diaphragm becomes irritated, which can be triggered by certain chemotherapy drugs.

Yet few studies have focused on hiccups in patients with cancer and none, until now, has sought the perspectives of cancer care clinicians.

Aminah Jatoi, MD, medical oncologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and two Mayo colleagues developed a survey, alongside MeterHealth, which this news organization distributed to clinicians with an interest in cancer care.

The survey gauged clinicians’ awareness or lack of awareness about clinically significant hiccups as well as treatments for hiccups and whether they consider hiccups an unmet palliative need.

A total of 684 clinicians completed two eligibility screening questions, which required them to have cared for more than 10 patients with cancer in the past 6 months with clinically significant hiccups (defined as hiccups that lasted more than 48 hours or occurred from cancer or cancer care).

Among 113 eligible health care professionals, 90 completed the survey: 42 physicians, 29 nurses, 15 nurse practitioners, and 4 physician assistants.

The survey revealed three key issues.

The first is that hiccups appear to be an underrecognized issue.

Among health care professionals who answered the eligibility screening questions, fewer than 20% reported caring for more than 10 patients with cancer in the past 6 months who had persistent hiccups. Most of these clinicians reported caring for more than 1,000 patients per year.

Given that 15%-40% of patients with cancer report hiccups, this finding suggests that hiccups are not widely recognized by health care professionals.

Second: The survey data showed that hiccups often increase patients’ anxiety, fatigue, and sleep problems and can decrease productivity at work or school.

In fact, when comparing hiccups to nausea and vomiting – sometimes described as one of the most severe side effects of cancer care – 40% of respondents rated hiccups as “much more” or “somewhat more” severe than nausea and vomiting for their patients and 38% rated the severity of the two issues as “about the same.”

Finally, even when hiccups are recognized and treated, about 20% of respondents said that current therapies are not very effective, and more treatment options are needed.

Among the survey respondents, the most frequently prescribed medications for chronic hiccups were the antipsychotic chlorpromazine, the muscle relaxant baclofen (Lioresal), the antiemetic metoclopramide (Metozolv ODT, Reglan), and the anticonvulsants gabapentin (Neurontin) and carbamazepine (Tegretol).

Survey respondents who provided comments about current treatments for hiccups highlighted a range of challenges. One respondent said, “When current therapies do not work, it can be very demoralizing to our patients.”  Another said, “I feel like it is a gamble whether treatment for hiccups will work or not.”

Still another felt that while current treatments work “quite well to halt hiccups,” they come with side effects which can be “quite severe.”

These results “clearly point to the unmet needs of hiccups in patients with cancer and should prompt more research aimed at generating more palliative options,” the authors said.

This research had no commercial funding. MeterHealth reviewed the manuscript and provided input on the accuracy of methods and results. Dr. Jatoi reports serving on an advisory board for MeterHealth (honoraria to institution).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As many as 40% of patients with cancer develop hiccups – often unbeknownst to their oncologists. But even if recognized, hiccups may not be treated effectively, according to a national survey of cancer care clinicians.

When poorly controlled, persistent hiccups can affect a patient’s quality of life, with 40% of survey respondents considering chronic hiccups “much more” or “somewhat more” severe than nausea and vomiting.

Overall, the findings indicate that patients with cancer who develop persistent hiccups are “truly suffering,” the authors wrote.

The survey results were published online recently in the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine.

Hiccups may simply be a nuisance for most, but these spasms can become problematic for patients with cancer, leading to sleep deprivation, fatigue, aspiration pneumonia, compromised food intake, weight loss, pain, and even death.

Hiccups can develop when the nerve that controls the diaphragm becomes irritated, which can be triggered by certain chemotherapy drugs.

Yet few studies have focused on hiccups in patients with cancer and none, until now, has sought the perspectives of cancer care clinicians.

Aminah Jatoi, MD, medical oncologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and two Mayo colleagues developed a survey, alongside MeterHealth, which this news organization distributed to clinicians with an interest in cancer care.

The survey gauged clinicians’ awareness or lack of awareness about clinically significant hiccups as well as treatments for hiccups and whether they consider hiccups an unmet palliative need.

A total of 684 clinicians completed two eligibility screening questions, which required them to have cared for more than 10 patients with cancer in the past 6 months with clinically significant hiccups (defined as hiccups that lasted more than 48 hours or occurred from cancer or cancer care).

Among 113 eligible health care professionals, 90 completed the survey: 42 physicians, 29 nurses, 15 nurse practitioners, and 4 physician assistants.

The survey revealed three key issues.

The first is that hiccups appear to be an underrecognized issue.

Among health care professionals who answered the eligibility screening questions, fewer than 20% reported caring for more than 10 patients with cancer in the past 6 months who had persistent hiccups. Most of these clinicians reported caring for more than 1,000 patients per year.

Given that 15%-40% of patients with cancer report hiccups, this finding suggests that hiccups are not widely recognized by health care professionals.

Second: The survey data showed that hiccups often increase patients’ anxiety, fatigue, and sleep problems and can decrease productivity at work or school.

In fact, when comparing hiccups to nausea and vomiting – sometimes described as one of the most severe side effects of cancer care – 40% of respondents rated hiccups as “much more” or “somewhat more” severe than nausea and vomiting for their patients and 38% rated the severity of the two issues as “about the same.”

Finally, even when hiccups are recognized and treated, about 20% of respondents said that current therapies are not very effective, and more treatment options are needed.

Among the survey respondents, the most frequently prescribed medications for chronic hiccups were the antipsychotic chlorpromazine, the muscle relaxant baclofen (Lioresal), the antiemetic metoclopramide (Metozolv ODT, Reglan), and the anticonvulsants gabapentin (Neurontin) and carbamazepine (Tegretol).

Survey respondents who provided comments about current treatments for hiccups highlighted a range of challenges. One respondent said, “When current therapies do not work, it can be very demoralizing to our patients.”  Another said, “I feel like it is a gamble whether treatment for hiccups will work or not.”

Still another felt that while current treatments work “quite well to halt hiccups,” they come with side effects which can be “quite severe.”

These results “clearly point to the unmet needs of hiccups in patients with cancer and should prompt more research aimed at generating more palliative options,” the authors said.

This research had no commercial funding. MeterHealth reviewed the manuscript and provided input on the accuracy of methods and results. Dr. Jatoi reports serving on an advisory board for MeterHealth (honoraria to institution).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As many as 40% of patients with cancer develop hiccups – often unbeknownst to their oncologists. But even if recognized, hiccups may not be treated effectively, according to a national survey of cancer care clinicians.

When poorly controlled, persistent hiccups can affect a patient’s quality of life, with 40% of survey respondents considering chronic hiccups “much more” or “somewhat more” severe than nausea and vomiting.

Overall, the findings indicate that patients with cancer who develop persistent hiccups are “truly suffering,” the authors wrote.

The survey results were published online recently in the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine.

Hiccups may simply be a nuisance for most, but these spasms can become problematic for patients with cancer, leading to sleep deprivation, fatigue, aspiration pneumonia, compromised food intake, weight loss, pain, and even death.

Hiccups can develop when the nerve that controls the diaphragm becomes irritated, which can be triggered by certain chemotherapy drugs.

Yet few studies have focused on hiccups in patients with cancer and none, until now, has sought the perspectives of cancer care clinicians.

Aminah Jatoi, MD, medical oncologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and two Mayo colleagues developed a survey, alongside MeterHealth, which this news organization distributed to clinicians with an interest in cancer care.

The survey gauged clinicians’ awareness or lack of awareness about clinically significant hiccups as well as treatments for hiccups and whether they consider hiccups an unmet palliative need.

A total of 684 clinicians completed two eligibility screening questions, which required them to have cared for more than 10 patients with cancer in the past 6 months with clinically significant hiccups (defined as hiccups that lasted more than 48 hours or occurred from cancer or cancer care).

Among 113 eligible health care professionals, 90 completed the survey: 42 physicians, 29 nurses, 15 nurse practitioners, and 4 physician assistants.

The survey revealed three key issues.

The first is that hiccups appear to be an underrecognized issue.

Among health care professionals who answered the eligibility screening questions, fewer than 20% reported caring for more than 10 patients with cancer in the past 6 months who had persistent hiccups. Most of these clinicians reported caring for more than 1,000 patients per year.

Given that 15%-40% of patients with cancer report hiccups, this finding suggests that hiccups are not widely recognized by health care professionals.

Second: The survey data showed that hiccups often increase patients’ anxiety, fatigue, and sleep problems and can decrease productivity at work or school.

In fact, when comparing hiccups to nausea and vomiting – sometimes described as one of the most severe side effects of cancer care – 40% of respondents rated hiccups as “much more” or “somewhat more” severe than nausea and vomiting for their patients and 38% rated the severity of the two issues as “about the same.”

Finally, even when hiccups are recognized and treated, about 20% of respondents said that current therapies are not very effective, and more treatment options are needed.

Among the survey respondents, the most frequently prescribed medications for chronic hiccups were the antipsychotic chlorpromazine, the muscle relaxant baclofen (Lioresal), the antiemetic metoclopramide (Metozolv ODT, Reglan), and the anticonvulsants gabapentin (Neurontin) and carbamazepine (Tegretol).

Survey respondents who provided comments about current treatments for hiccups highlighted a range of challenges. One respondent said, “When current therapies do not work, it can be very demoralizing to our patients.”  Another said, “I feel like it is a gamble whether treatment for hiccups will work or not.”

Still another felt that while current treatments work “quite well to halt hiccups,” they come with side effects which can be “quite severe.”

These results “clearly point to the unmet needs of hiccups in patients with cancer and should prompt more research aimed at generating more palliative options,” the authors said.

This research had no commercial funding. MeterHealth reviewed the manuscript and provided input on the accuracy of methods and results. Dr. Jatoi reports serving on an advisory board for MeterHealth (honoraria to institution).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.

It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.

To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.

Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”

In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.

In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.

After adjustment, the researchers found that a high allostatic load was linked to a 14% increased risk of cancer death overall (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.

Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.

The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.

It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.

To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.

Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”

In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.

In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.

After adjustment, the researchers found that a high allostatic load was linked to a 14% increased risk of cancer death overall (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.

Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.

The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.

It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.

To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.

Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”

In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.

In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.

After adjustment, the researchers found that a high allostatic load was linked to a 14% increased risk of cancer death overall (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.

Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.

Josie Tenore, MD, and Paul Hinds were introduced by a mutual friend in 2017 and hadn’t been going out long when she laid down the law: He had to get a physical.

“I don’t date people who don’t take care of their health,” said Dr. Tenore, who practices cosmetic dermatology and functional medicine in suburban Chicago.

One of Mr. Hinds’ blood tests that summer came back with an alarming result: His prostate-specific antigen (PSA), level was very high. A biopsy confirmed he had advanced prostate cancer.

There aren’t a lot of comfortable alternatives for treating prostate cancer, which generally progresses as long as testosterone levels remain high. Marijuana appears to lower testosterone levels, so after his diagnosis, he dosed a liquid form of cannabis for several weeks. That cut his PSA in half, but Mr. Hinds, a cybersecurity expert who likes yoga and bicycling, “was stoned out of his mind and couldn’t function,” Dr. Tenore recalled.

With Dr. Tenore guiding his decisions, Mr. Hinds next tried high-frequency ultrasound treatment, but it failed. And in the summer of 2019 doctors removed his prostate gland. Still, the PSA levels climbed again, and doctors assessed that the cancer had metastasized. The only alternative was to drastically lower Mr. Hinds’ testosterone levels – either via surgery or drugs that block all testosterone. In May 2021, he got his first intramuscular shot of Lupron Depot, a brand name for leuprolide, designed to suppress the prostate gland’s release of the hormone for 3 months. That August, he got his second shot.

And then the bills came.

The patient: Paul Hinds, now 60, is covered by United Healthcare through a COBRA plan from his former employer.

Medical service: Two 3-month Lupron Depot injections for metastatic prostate cancer.

Service provider: University of Chicago Medicine, a 900-physician nonprofit system that includes an 811-bed medical center, a suburban hospital, the Pritzker School of Medicine, and outpatient clinics and physician offices throughout the Chicago area.

Total bill: $73,812 for the two shots ($35,414 for the first, $38,398 for the second), including lab work and physician charges. United Healthcare’s negotiated rate for the two shots plus associated fees was $27,568, of which the insurer paid $19,567. After Mr. Hinds haggled with the hospital and insurer for more than a year, his share of the bills was determined to be nearly $7,000.

What gives: The first issue is unrelenting price increases on old drugs that have remained branded as manufacturers find ways to extend patents for decades and maintain sales through marketing.

Though Lupron was invented in 1973, its manufacturer got patent extensions in 1989 by offering a slow-release version. Drugmakers commonly use this tactic to extend their exclusive rights to sell a product.

The development of Lupron Depot as an intramuscular shot that suppressed testosterone for months at a time improved patient compliance and also enabled its maker, Abbott Laboratories, and its Japanese partner, Takeda, to extend their patents on the drug into the 2000s, said Gerald Weisberg, MD, a former Abbott scientist who has been critical of the company’s pricing policies.

In subsequent years, Abbott and Takeda, in a joint venture called TAP Pharmaceuticals, steadily marked up the price of their slow-release product. In 2000, the average wholesale U.S. price for a 3-month shot was $1,245; currently that figure is $5,866. (It is manufactured in the United States by AbbVie now.)

In the United Kingdom, where health care is generally free and Takeda sells the drug under the name Prostap, all physicians can purchase a 3-month dose for about $260.

It’s likely that Chicago Medicine, where Mr. Hinds got his shots, paid something close to the British price. That’s because the health system’s hospital on Chicago’s South Side participates in a federal program called 340B, which allows hospitals that serve low-income populations to purchase drugs at deep discounts.

Lupron Depot is given as a simple injection into the muscle. It takes minutes for a nurse or doctor to administer. Yet hospital systems like Chicago Medicine can and typically do charge lavishly for such services, to enhance revenue, said Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Chicago Medicine declined to say what it paid for the drug.

While U.S. drugmakers can price their drugs however they please, TAP has gotten into trouble for its Lupron sales policies in the past. In 2001, after a Justice Department probe, it paid an $875 million settlement for illegally stimulating sales by giving urologists free and discounted vials of the drug while enabling them to charge Medicare full price.

Since then, many other drugs aimed at lowering testosterone levels have entered the market, including a pill, relugolix (Orgovyx). So why wouldn’t a patient use them?

Lupron Depot is long acting, is easy to prepare and store, and employs a small needle, which some patients prefer, said Brian McNeil, MD, chief of urology at University Hospital of Brooklyn. Orgovyx is convenient, but “a patient has to be very compliant. They have to take it every day around the same time,” he said. “Some people just forget.”

But there is another important factor that may well explain Lupron Depot’s ongoing popularity among medical providers: Doctors and hospitals can earn tens of thousands of dollars each visit by marking up its price and administration fees – as they did with Mr. Hinds. If they merely write a prescription for a drug that can be taken at home, they earn nothing.

Asked about this high patient charge and the possibility of using alternatives, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo said payment was “appropriately based on the hospital’s contract and the member’s benefit plan,” adding that the insurer encourages customers to shop around for the best quality and price.

Resolution: In addition to leaving Mr. Hinds listless, the Lupron Depot shots were, literally, a pain in the rear end. “Each time he was miserable for 2 weeks,” Dr. Tenore said. After looking over his first bill for the Lupron shot, Dr. Tenore told Mr. Hinds he should ask his doctor whether there was a less expensive drug that was easier to take.

After the second shot, in August 2021, a pharmacist told him he could instead receive the pill. His doctor prescribed Mr. Hinds 3 months’ worth of Orgovyx last November, for which he paid $216 and the insurer paid over $6,000. The drug’s list price is about $2,700 a month. There is evidence that Orgovyx works a little better than leuprolide.

Orgovyx was a “no-brainer,” Mr. Hinds said. “Why would you want a sore ass for two weeks when you can take a pill that kicks in sooner, functions the same way, and clears your body of testosterone faster?”

While Orgovyx is increasingly used for prostate cancer, Lupron and other injections usually remain the standard of care, hospital spokesperson Ashley Heher said. Clinicians “work with patients to determine what treatments are the most medically effective and, when necessary, to find reasonable alternatives that may be less financially burdensome due to insurance coverage limitations.”

Mr. Hinds was baffled by the size of the charges. During months of phone calls and emails, the hospital reversed and then reapplied part of the charge, and then in July agreed to a $666.34 monthly payment plan. After Hinds had made two payments, however, the hospital announced Aug. 29 it was canceling the agreement and sending the remainder of his bill to a collection agency. Two weeks later, the hospital reinstated the payment plan – after KHN asked about the cancellation.

As for Mr. Hinds, he remains active, though his bike rides have been shortened from 50 or 60 miles to about 30, he said.

He’s grateful to have Dr. Tenore as a free consultant and empathizes with those who lack a knowledgeable guide through their disease and health care’s financial maze.

“I’ve got Dr. Josie as an advocate who knows the system,” Mr. Hinds said.

The takeaway: First tip: If you are prescribed an infusion or injection, ask your physician if there are cheaper oral medications to treat your condition. Also, many drugs that are given by injection – ones that are given “subcutaneously,” rather than into a muscle – can be administered by a patient at home, avoiding hefty administration fees. Drugs like Dupixent for eczema fall into this category.

Keep in mind that where you get treatment could make a big difference in your charges: A study found that leading U.S. cancer centers charge enormous markups to private insurers for drug injections or infusions. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions. And the percentage of cancer infusions done in hospital-operated clinics increased from 6% in 2004 to 43% in 2014, and has grown since.

Under a law that took effect in 2021, hospitals are required to list their charges, though they currently do so in a way that is not user friendly. But it’s worth taking a look at the price list – the hospital chargemaster – to try to decipher the pricing and markup for your medicine. If you’re about to get an injection, infusion, or procedure done in a hospital system, ask ahead of time for an estimate of what you will owe.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Josie Tenore, MD, and Paul Hinds were introduced by a mutual friend in 2017 and hadn’t been going out long when she laid down the law: He had to get a physical.

“I don’t date people who don’t take care of their health,” said Dr. Tenore, who practices cosmetic dermatology and functional medicine in suburban Chicago.

One of Mr. Hinds’ blood tests that summer came back with an alarming result: His prostate-specific antigen (PSA), level was very high. A biopsy confirmed he had advanced prostate cancer.

There aren’t a lot of comfortable alternatives for treating prostate cancer, which generally progresses as long as testosterone levels remain high. Marijuana appears to lower testosterone levels, so after his diagnosis, he dosed a liquid form of cannabis for several weeks. That cut his PSA in half, but Mr. Hinds, a cybersecurity expert who likes yoga and bicycling, “was stoned out of his mind and couldn’t function,” Dr. Tenore recalled.

With Dr. Tenore guiding his decisions, Mr. Hinds next tried high-frequency ultrasound treatment, but it failed. And in the summer of 2019 doctors removed his prostate gland. Still, the PSA levels climbed again, and doctors assessed that the cancer had metastasized. The only alternative was to drastically lower Mr. Hinds’ testosterone levels – either via surgery or drugs that block all testosterone. In May 2021, he got his first intramuscular shot of Lupron Depot, a brand name for leuprolide, designed to suppress the prostate gland’s release of the hormone for 3 months. That August, he got his second shot.

And then the bills came.

The patient: Paul Hinds, now 60, is covered by United Healthcare through a COBRA plan from his former employer.

Medical service: Two 3-month Lupron Depot injections for metastatic prostate cancer.

Service provider: University of Chicago Medicine, a 900-physician nonprofit system that includes an 811-bed medical center, a suburban hospital, the Pritzker School of Medicine, and outpatient clinics and physician offices throughout the Chicago area.

Total bill: $73,812 for the two shots ($35,414 for the first, $38,398 for the second), including lab work and physician charges. United Healthcare’s negotiated rate for the two shots plus associated fees was $27,568, of which the insurer paid $19,567. After Mr. Hinds haggled with the hospital and insurer for more than a year, his share of the bills was determined to be nearly $7,000.

What gives: The first issue is unrelenting price increases on old drugs that have remained branded as manufacturers find ways to extend patents for decades and maintain sales through marketing.

Though Lupron was invented in 1973, its manufacturer got patent extensions in 1989 by offering a slow-release version. Drugmakers commonly use this tactic to extend their exclusive rights to sell a product.

The development of Lupron Depot as an intramuscular shot that suppressed testosterone for months at a time improved patient compliance and also enabled its maker, Abbott Laboratories, and its Japanese partner, Takeda, to extend their patents on the drug into the 2000s, said Gerald Weisberg, MD, a former Abbott scientist who has been critical of the company’s pricing policies.

In subsequent years, Abbott and Takeda, in a joint venture called TAP Pharmaceuticals, steadily marked up the price of their slow-release product. In 2000, the average wholesale U.S. price for a 3-month shot was $1,245; currently that figure is $5,866. (It is manufactured in the United States by AbbVie now.)

In the United Kingdom, where health care is generally free and Takeda sells the drug under the name Prostap, all physicians can purchase a 3-month dose for about $260.

It’s likely that Chicago Medicine, where Mr. Hinds got his shots, paid something close to the British price. That’s because the health system’s hospital on Chicago’s South Side participates in a federal program called 340B, which allows hospitals that serve low-income populations to purchase drugs at deep discounts.

Lupron Depot is given as a simple injection into the muscle. It takes minutes for a nurse or doctor to administer. Yet hospital systems like Chicago Medicine can and typically do charge lavishly for such services, to enhance revenue, said Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Chicago Medicine declined to say what it paid for the drug.

While U.S. drugmakers can price their drugs however they please, TAP has gotten into trouble for its Lupron sales policies in the past. In 2001, after a Justice Department probe, it paid an $875 million settlement for illegally stimulating sales by giving urologists free and discounted vials of the drug while enabling them to charge Medicare full price.

Since then, many other drugs aimed at lowering testosterone levels have entered the market, including a pill, relugolix (Orgovyx). So why wouldn’t a patient use them?

Lupron Depot is long acting, is easy to prepare and store, and employs a small needle, which some patients prefer, said Brian McNeil, MD, chief of urology at University Hospital of Brooklyn. Orgovyx is convenient, but “a patient has to be very compliant. They have to take it every day around the same time,” he said. “Some people just forget.”

But there is another important factor that may well explain Lupron Depot’s ongoing popularity among medical providers: Doctors and hospitals can earn tens of thousands of dollars each visit by marking up its price and administration fees – as they did with Mr. Hinds. If they merely write a prescription for a drug that can be taken at home, they earn nothing.

Asked about this high patient charge and the possibility of using alternatives, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo said payment was “appropriately based on the hospital’s contract and the member’s benefit plan,” adding that the insurer encourages customers to shop around for the best quality and price.

Resolution: In addition to leaving Mr. Hinds listless, the Lupron Depot shots were, literally, a pain in the rear end. “Each time he was miserable for 2 weeks,” Dr. Tenore said. After looking over his first bill for the Lupron shot, Dr. Tenore told Mr. Hinds he should ask his doctor whether there was a less expensive drug that was easier to take.

After the second shot, in August 2021, a pharmacist told him he could instead receive the pill. His doctor prescribed Mr. Hinds 3 months’ worth of Orgovyx last November, for which he paid $216 and the insurer paid over $6,000. The drug’s list price is about $2,700 a month. There is evidence that Orgovyx works a little better than leuprolide.

Orgovyx was a “no-brainer,” Mr. Hinds said. “Why would you want a sore ass for two weeks when you can take a pill that kicks in sooner, functions the same way, and clears your body of testosterone faster?”

While Orgovyx is increasingly used for prostate cancer, Lupron and other injections usually remain the standard of care, hospital spokesperson Ashley Heher said. Clinicians “work with patients to determine what treatments are the most medically effective and, when necessary, to find reasonable alternatives that may be less financially burdensome due to insurance coverage limitations.”

Mr. Hinds was baffled by the size of the charges. During months of phone calls and emails, the hospital reversed and then reapplied part of the charge, and then in July agreed to a $666.34 monthly payment plan. After Hinds had made two payments, however, the hospital announced Aug. 29 it was canceling the agreement and sending the remainder of his bill to a collection agency. Two weeks later, the hospital reinstated the payment plan – after KHN asked about the cancellation.

As for Mr. Hinds, he remains active, though his bike rides have been shortened from 50 or 60 miles to about 30, he said.

He’s grateful to have Dr. Tenore as a free consultant and empathizes with those who lack a knowledgeable guide through their disease and health care’s financial maze.

“I’ve got Dr. Josie as an advocate who knows the system,” Mr. Hinds said.

The takeaway: First tip: If you are prescribed an infusion or injection, ask your physician if there are cheaper oral medications to treat your condition. Also, many drugs that are given by injection – ones that are given “subcutaneously,” rather than into a muscle – can be administered by a patient at home, avoiding hefty administration fees. Drugs like Dupixent for eczema fall into this category.

Keep in mind that where you get treatment could make a big difference in your charges: A study found that leading U.S. cancer centers charge enormous markups to private insurers for drug injections or infusions. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions. And the percentage of cancer infusions done in hospital-operated clinics increased from 6% in 2004 to 43% in 2014, and has grown since.

Under a law that took effect in 2021, hospitals are required to list their charges, though they currently do so in a way that is not user friendly. But it’s worth taking a look at the price list – the hospital chargemaster – to try to decipher the pricing and markup for your medicine. If you’re about to get an injection, infusion, or procedure done in a hospital system, ask ahead of time for an estimate of what you will owe.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Josie Tenore, MD, and Paul Hinds were introduced by a mutual friend in 2017 and hadn’t been going out long when she laid down the law: He had to get a physical.

“I don’t date people who don’t take care of their health,” said Dr. Tenore, who practices cosmetic dermatology and functional medicine in suburban Chicago.

One of Mr. Hinds’ blood tests that summer came back with an alarming result: His prostate-specific antigen (PSA), level was very high. A biopsy confirmed he had advanced prostate cancer.

There aren’t a lot of comfortable alternatives for treating prostate cancer, which generally progresses as long as testosterone levels remain high. Marijuana appears to lower testosterone levels, so after his diagnosis, he dosed a liquid form of cannabis for several weeks. That cut his PSA in half, but Mr. Hinds, a cybersecurity expert who likes yoga and bicycling, “was stoned out of his mind and couldn’t function,” Dr. Tenore recalled.

With Dr. Tenore guiding his decisions, Mr. Hinds next tried high-frequency ultrasound treatment, but it failed. And in the summer of 2019 doctors removed his prostate gland. Still, the PSA levels climbed again, and doctors assessed that the cancer had metastasized. The only alternative was to drastically lower Mr. Hinds’ testosterone levels – either via surgery or drugs that block all testosterone. In May 2021, he got his first intramuscular shot of Lupron Depot, a brand name for leuprolide, designed to suppress the prostate gland’s release of the hormone for 3 months. That August, he got his second shot.

And then the bills came.

The patient: Paul Hinds, now 60, is covered by United Healthcare through a COBRA plan from his former employer.

Medical service: Two 3-month Lupron Depot injections for metastatic prostate cancer.

Service provider: University of Chicago Medicine, a 900-physician nonprofit system that includes an 811-bed medical center, a suburban hospital, the Pritzker School of Medicine, and outpatient clinics and physician offices throughout the Chicago area.

Total bill: $73,812 for the two shots ($35,414 for the first, $38,398 for the second), including lab work and physician charges. United Healthcare’s negotiated rate for the two shots plus associated fees was $27,568, of which the insurer paid $19,567. After Mr. Hinds haggled with the hospital and insurer for more than a year, his share of the bills was determined to be nearly $7,000.

What gives: The first issue is unrelenting price increases on old drugs that have remained branded as manufacturers find ways to extend patents for decades and maintain sales through marketing.

Though Lupron was invented in 1973, its manufacturer got patent extensions in 1989 by offering a slow-release version. Drugmakers commonly use this tactic to extend their exclusive rights to sell a product.

The development of Lupron Depot as an intramuscular shot that suppressed testosterone for months at a time improved patient compliance and also enabled its maker, Abbott Laboratories, and its Japanese partner, Takeda, to extend their patents on the drug into the 2000s, said Gerald Weisberg, MD, a former Abbott scientist who has been critical of the company’s pricing policies.

In subsequent years, Abbott and Takeda, in a joint venture called TAP Pharmaceuticals, steadily marked up the price of their slow-release product. In 2000, the average wholesale U.S. price for a 3-month shot was $1,245; currently that figure is $5,866. (It is manufactured in the United States by AbbVie now.)

In the United Kingdom, where health care is generally free and Takeda sells the drug under the name Prostap, all physicians can purchase a 3-month dose for about $260.

It’s likely that Chicago Medicine, where Mr. Hinds got his shots, paid something close to the British price. That’s because the health system’s hospital on Chicago’s South Side participates in a federal program called 340B, which allows hospitals that serve low-income populations to purchase drugs at deep discounts.

Lupron Depot is given as a simple injection into the muscle. It takes minutes for a nurse or doctor to administer. Yet hospital systems like Chicago Medicine can and typically do charge lavishly for such services, to enhance revenue, said Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Chicago Medicine declined to say what it paid for the drug.

While U.S. drugmakers can price their drugs however they please, TAP has gotten into trouble for its Lupron sales policies in the past. In 2001, after a Justice Department probe, it paid an $875 million settlement for illegally stimulating sales by giving urologists free and discounted vials of the drug while enabling them to charge Medicare full price.

Since then, many other drugs aimed at lowering testosterone levels have entered the market, including a pill, relugolix (Orgovyx). So why wouldn’t a patient use them?

Lupron Depot is long acting, is easy to prepare and store, and employs a small needle, which some patients prefer, said Brian McNeil, MD, chief of urology at University Hospital of Brooklyn. Orgovyx is convenient, but “a patient has to be very compliant. They have to take it every day around the same time,” he said. “Some people just forget.”

But there is another important factor that may well explain Lupron Depot’s ongoing popularity among medical providers: Doctors and hospitals can earn tens of thousands of dollars each visit by marking up its price and administration fees – as they did with Mr. Hinds. If they merely write a prescription for a drug that can be taken at home, they earn nothing.

Asked about this high patient charge and the possibility of using alternatives, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo said payment was “appropriately based on the hospital’s contract and the member’s benefit plan,” adding that the insurer encourages customers to shop around for the best quality and price.

Resolution: In addition to leaving Mr. Hinds listless, the Lupron Depot shots were, literally, a pain in the rear end. “Each time he was miserable for 2 weeks,” Dr. Tenore said. After looking over his first bill for the Lupron shot, Dr. Tenore told Mr. Hinds he should ask his doctor whether there was a less expensive drug that was easier to take.

After the second shot, in August 2021, a pharmacist told him he could instead receive the pill. His doctor prescribed Mr. Hinds 3 months’ worth of Orgovyx last November, for which he paid $216 and the insurer paid over $6,000. The drug’s list price is about $2,700 a month. There is evidence that Orgovyx works a little better than leuprolide.

Orgovyx was a “no-brainer,” Mr. Hinds said. “Why would you want a sore ass for two weeks when you can take a pill that kicks in sooner, functions the same way, and clears your body of testosterone faster?”

While Orgovyx is increasingly used for prostate cancer, Lupron and other injections usually remain the standard of care, hospital spokesperson Ashley Heher said. Clinicians “work with patients to determine what treatments are the most medically effective and, when necessary, to find reasonable alternatives that may be less financially burdensome due to insurance coverage limitations.”

Mr. Hinds was baffled by the size of the charges. During months of phone calls and emails, the hospital reversed and then reapplied part of the charge, and then in July agreed to a $666.34 monthly payment plan. After Hinds had made two payments, however, the hospital announced Aug. 29 it was canceling the agreement and sending the remainder of his bill to a collection agency. Two weeks later, the hospital reinstated the payment plan – after KHN asked about the cancellation.

As for Mr. Hinds, he remains active, though his bike rides have been shortened from 50 or 60 miles to about 30, he said.

He’s grateful to have Dr. Tenore as a free consultant and empathizes with those who lack a knowledgeable guide through their disease and health care’s financial maze.

“I’ve got Dr. Josie as an advocate who knows the system,” Mr. Hinds said.

The takeaway: First tip: If you are prescribed an infusion or injection, ask your physician if there are cheaper oral medications to treat your condition. Also, many drugs that are given by injection – ones that are given “subcutaneously,” rather than into a muscle – can be administered by a patient at home, avoiding hefty administration fees. Drugs like Dupixent for eczema fall into this category.

Keep in mind that where you get treatment could make a big difference in your charges: A study found that leading U.S. cancer centers charge enormous markups to private insurers for drug injections or infusions. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions. And the percentage of cancer infusions done in hospital-operated clinics increased from 6% in 2004 to 43% in 2014, and has grown since.

Under a law that took effect in 2021, hospitals are required to list their charges, though they currently do so in a way that is not user friendly. But it’s worth taking a look at the price list – the hospital chargemaster – to try to decipher the pricing and markup for your medicine. If you’re about to get an injection, infusion, or procedure done in a hospital system, ask ahead of time for an estimate of what you will owe.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

When 32-year-old Brittany Dicks was diagnosed with stage II triple negative breast cancer in January 2022, she wasn’t worried about the cost of treatment. A medical assistant in Charleston, S.C., Ms. Dicks had full-time employment with health benefits.

But when she wasn’t able to work for several months because of chemotherapy and its side effects, Ms. Dicks lost her job. Her health insurance coverage ended in May. And although she filed for Medicaid at the beginning of June, it wasn’t approved until September.

Meanwhile, Ms. Dicks still needed treatment. She estimates that she ran up close to $20,000 in medical debt while finishing chemotherapy during the 4 months she was uninsured.

The surgeon she had seen since her diagnosis terminated her care when she could no longer pay her bills. That left her delaying a much-needed mastectomy.

“I don’t sleep at night,” said Ms. Dicks, a single mother of two young kids, ages 3 and 11. “Mentally, I’m drained. Just because I have cancer, doesn’t mean the bills aren’t due every month.”

As soon as she felt well enough over the summer, she started working as a part-time delivery driver for DoorDash to help pay for food and gas.

But that was just a Band-Aid. Even when her new insurance kicked in, covering the costs of daily life remained a struggle.

Ms. Dicks is still in deep medical debt. Her Medicaid has covered new medical expenses, and she hopes Medicaid will reimburse her for the debt she incurred over the summer while she waited for her coverage to kick in. So far, though, Medicaid has not touched her $20,000 debt.

“I fear that I’m not going to be able to dig out of this hole,” Ms. Dicks said.

Researchers who study the financial impacts of cancer have a term for Ms. Dicks’ experience: financial toxicity.

Financial toxicity is a catchall term for the burden many Americans with cancer experience.

“Financial toxicity is a multidimensional concept. There’s both a material burden and a psychosocial one,” said Grace Li Smith, MD, PhD, MPH, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Financial toxicity encompasses the direct costs of medical care, including copays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for treatment and medications as well as the indirect costs from loss of income or savings associated with cancer care.

Researchers are also now beginning to understand the psychological effects these financial burdens can have on patients and their family.

“Financial toxicity is not unique to the patient,” said Dr. Li Smith. It “very directly impacts the whole family or household.”
 

Stifling financial pressures

Early in her career, Dr. Li Smith was already seeing how her patients’ worries extended beyond their physical disease.

One of Dr. Li Smith’s first patients told her their greatest worry wasn’t whether the treatment would work or what physical toxicity to expect, it was how they would pay for their care.

“There was much more anxiety and true distress about the financial burden than about the treatment itself,” Dr. Li Smith recalled.

This fear about the costs of cancer care is well founded. In the United States, cancer treatment costs reached an estimated $150 billion in 2020 and continue to rise. Patients shoulder a significant portion of that burden – with one study estimating that patients paid $21 billion for their cancer care in 2019.

The burden is often compounded by decreased income. Between 40% and 85% of patients with cancer needed to take time off work or quit their jobs during treatment. And for those, like Dicks, who find themselves with no insurance, out-of-pocket costs can quickly skyrocket.

In fact, one study of newly diagnosed cancer patients over age 50 reported that more than 42% of patients fully depleted their financial assets and around 30% incurred debt by the second year of their diagnosis.

Younger adults may be even more financially vulnerable. A study of patients in Washington found that those under 65 – which represent about half of cancer cases – were two to five times more likely to declare bankruptcy than patients over 65.

Dr. Li Smith and colleagues have found that younger patients aged 18-64 experienced greater monetary hardships, which meant less money for food, worse adherence to medications, as well as greater distress and anxiety overall. In fact, younger adults were over 4.5 times more likely to encounter severe financial toxicity, compared with older adults, and about 4 times more likely to experience severe psychological effects from this burden.

The distress, if left unchecked, can spiral out of control.

Molly MacDonald had just gone through a financially devastating divorce in 2005 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Recently out of work and dealing with a $1,300 monthly COBRA premium, the mother of five had no financial safety net. She risked having her car repossessed and her utilities shut off.

“I gave tentative thought to how I could take my life and make it look like an accident,” said Ms. MacDonald. “I thought the kids would be better off without me.”

For some, the loss of income can be even more worrisome than the medical bills. Some patients may go back to work during treatment, often against medical advice.

When Stephanie Caputo, 43, of Monroe, N.J., began treatment for stage III breast cancer in 2021, her physician recommended she stop working. Treatment would make her immunocompromised, and her job in a medical clinic could expose her to harmful pathogens, including the coronavirus.

Ms. Caputo went on disability and received $900 every 2 weeks. But that wasn’t enough to pay her mortgage, let alone cover her other monthly expenses as a single mother of 4 teenagers.

After finishing chemotherapy, and during radiation, Ms. Caputo went back to work, part time, against her doctor’s advice.

“My doctor is telling me I can’t work, but I also can’t have my house go into default,” said Ms. Caputo.

But being on her feet through 12-hour shifts made treatment side effects, especially back and joint pain, kick into overdrive. “The physicality of my job was really difficult to tolerate,” she said.

The physical burden was too great to take on more work, but the extra money also wasn’t enough to keep her afloat. Fortunately, her brother stepped in and covered 6 months of her mortgage payments.
 

Financial toxicity impacts families

Although financial toxicity research to date has largely focused on the patient, researchers are also starting to understand that family members and caregivers often share in the burden.

“We are just at the beginning of realizing that this is a real problem,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Chino and colleagues recently showed that family members of patients with cancer were more likely to delay or forgo medical care than family members of people without cancer. The study found the effect was greatest among family members of younger adults with cancer.

“The caregiver and family burden related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is really underappreciated,” said Dr. Chino. “Family members and caregivers are neglecting their own health concerns, passing up career opportunities, struggling with financial concerns.”

Dr. Chino speaks from personal experience. When her fiancé, later husband, was diagnosed with neuroendocrine carcinoma in 2005, Dr. Chino quit her job as art director at a television production company to take care of him.

The couple, both in their 20s, struggled to afford his care. Dr. Chino put her own dental, medical, and mental health care on hold. She never, for instance, went to physical therapy to address injuries sustained sleeping in hospital chairs and moving around her husband who was over 6 feet tall. At one point, she walked with a limp.

Dr. Chino’s husband passed away in 2007, and even 15 years later, her injury from sleeping in hospital chairs remains “a significant physical burden,” she said. But like many caregivers “I wasn’t really thinking about my own health.”

Danielle Hadfield, 35, an ED nurse in Rochester, N.Y., also delayed her own care when her mom got sick.

Ms. Hadfield quit her job shortly after her mom was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in August 2020. Ms. Hadfield knew her mom, who lived 3.5 hours away in Albany, N.Y., would need a lot of care in the upcoming months.

“I knew this was going to be the last year or so of her life, and I wanted to be there for her,” said Ms. Hadfield.

When Ms. Hadfield quit her job, she and her husband – who was self-employed – purchased health insurance coverage through the New York state marketplace. The monthly insurance payments for Ms. Hadfield, who was pregnant with her second child, her husband, and their toddler cost as much as the family’s monthly mortgage payments.

In addition to providing childcare for her young daughter and making frequent trips to Albany, Ms. Hadfield began a side business as a legal nurse consultant, working mostly at night, to replace a portion of her lost income. During this time, she began to experience pain attacks that would migrate through her body along with intermittent tongue and facial numbness. She ignored these health issues for nearly a year, until after her mother died in November 2021.

Only after her mother passed away did Ms. Hadfield begin seeking answers to her own pain. In September 2022, she finally got them. She had a nerve condition called small-fiber sensory neuropathy.

But even with a diagnosis, she is still facing more tests to root out the cause and understand the best treatment.
 

Is help out there?

What can physicians do to help patients and families at risk for financial toxicity?

Specific guidelines for dealing with financial toxicity do not exist in most professional guidelines, nor are there standard screening tools to identify it, said Dr. Li Smith.

These gaps put pressure on physicians to ask about financial barriers and concerns, but most do not know how to broach the topic or how to help. “Physicians may not know how to fix the problem or what resources exist,” Dr. Li Smith said.

Patients and family members, on the other hand, are often reluctant to bring up cost with physicians. Some may be ashamed to talk about their financial problems while others may fear doing so will prevent them from being offered the best possible treatments, said Ms. MacDonald.

But, experts say, financial toxicity needs to be dealt with head on. That means involving financial navigators or counselors and social workers who can, for instance, help patients and families find financial support for their basic living expenses.

From a research perspective, more clinical trials should include financial toxicity outcomes, said Joshua Palmer, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Palmer and colleagues recently showed that the number of radiation therapy clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints increased significantly from 2001 to 2020, though the absolute rate of inclusion remains low, at roughly 1.5% of radiation therapy-based clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints from 2016 to 2020.

“Financial burden is part of the broader discussion about shared decision-making,” said Dr. Palmer.

In shared decision-making, physicians discuss the risks and benefits of different treatment options, empowering the patient to make an informed choice with the physician.

What we want to avoid is patients feeling like they will get inferior care, if they have financial barriers, said Dr. Palmer.

And every little bit can help. In 2006, Ms. MacDonald started the Pink Fund – a nonprofit to help patients with cancer cover nonmedical cost-of-living expenses. Both Ms. Caputo and Ms. Dicks received grants from the Pink Fund. For Ms. Caputo, the funds covered 2 months of car payments and for Ms. Dicks, it covered 2 months of rent.

While the one-time grant was a big help, said Ms. Dicks, “cancer is an everyday thing.” And “we all deserve peace of mind” when trying to heal.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

When 32-year-old Brittany Dicks was diagnosed with stage II triple negative breast cancer in January 2022, she wasn’t worried about the cost of treatment. A medical assistant in Charleston, S.C., Ms. Dicks had full-time employment with health benefits.

But when she wasn’t able to work for several months because of chemotherapy and its side effects, Ms. Dicks lost her job. Her health insurance coverage ended in May. And although she filed for Medicaid at the beginning of June, it wasn’t approved until September.

Meanwhile, Ms. Dicks still needed treatment. She estimates that she ran up close to $20,000 in medical debt while finishing chemotherapy during the 4 months she was uninsured.

The surgeon she had seen since her diagnosis terminated her care when she could no longer pay her bills. That left her delaying a much-needed mastectomy.

“I don’t sleep at night,” said Ms. Dicks, a single mother of two young kids, ages 3 and 11. “Mentally, I’m drained. Just because I have cancer, doesn’t mean the bills aren’t due every month.”

As soon as she felt well enough over the summer, she started working as a part-time delivery driver for DoorDash to help pay for food and gas.

But that was just a Band-Aid. Even when her new insurance kicked in, covering the costs of daily life remained a struggle.

Ms. Dicks is still in deep medical debt. Her Medicaid has covered new medical expenses, and she hopes Medicaid will reimburse her for the debt she incurred over the summer while she waited for her coverage to kick in. So far, though, Medicaid has not touched her $20,000 debt.

“I fear that I’m not going to be able to dig out of this hole,” Ms. Dicks said.

Researchers who study the financial impacts of cancer have a term for Ms. Dicks’ experience: financial toxicity.

Financial toxicity is a catchall term for the burden many Americans with cancer experience.

“Financial toxicity is a multidimensional concept. There’s both a material burden and a psychosocial one,” said Grace Li Smith, MD, PhD, MPH, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Financial toxicity encompasses the direct costs of medical care, including copays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for treatment and medications as well as the indirect costs from loss of income or savings associated with cancer care.

Researchers are also now beginning to understand the psychological effects these financial burdens can have on patients and their family.

“Financial toxicity is not unique to the patient,” said Dr. Li Smith. It “very directly impacts the whole family or household.”
 

Stifling financial pressures

Early in her career, Dr. Li Smith was already seeing how her patients’ worries extended beyond their physical disease.

One of Dr. Li Smith’s first patients told her their greatest worry wasn’t whether the treatment would work or what physical toxicity to expect, it was how they would pay for their care.

“There was much more anxiety and true distress about the financial burden than about the treatment itself,” Dr. Li Smith recalled.

This fear about the costs of cancer care is well founded. In the United States, cancer treatment costs reached an estimated $150 billion in 2020 and continue to rise. Patients shoulder a significant portion of that burden – with one study estimating that patients paid $21 billion for their cancer care in 2019.

The burden is often compounded by decreased income. Between 40% and 85% of patients with cancer needed to take time off work or quit their jobs during treatment. And for those, like Dicks, who find themselves with no insurance, out-of-pocket costs can quickly skyrocket.

In fact, one study of newly diagnosed cancer patients over age 50 reported that more than 42% of patients fully depleted their financial assets and around 30% incurred debt by the second year of their diagnosis.

Younger adults may be even more financially vulnerable. A study of patients in Washington found that those under 65 – which represent about half of cancer cases – were two to five times more likely to declare bankruptcy than patients over 65.

Dr. Li Smith and colleagues have found that younger patients aged 18-64 experienced greater monetary hardships, which meant less money for food, worse adherence to medications, as well as greater distress and anxiety overall. In fact, younger adults were over 4.5 times more likely to encounter severe financial toxicity, compared with older adults, and about 4 times more likely to experience severe psychological effects from this burden.

The distress, if left unchecked, can spiral out of control.

Molly MacDonald had just gone through a financially devastating divorce in 2005 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Recently out of work and dealing with a $1,300 monthly COBRA premium, the mother of five had no financial safety net. She risked having her car repossessed and her utilities shut off.

“I gave tentative thought to how I could take my life and make it look like an accident,” said Ms. MacDonald. “I thought the kids would be better off without me.”

For some, the loss of income can be even more worrisome than the medical bills. Some patients may go back to work during treatment, often against medical advice.

When Stephanie Caputo, 43, of Monroe, N.J., began treatment for stage III breast cancer in 2021, her physician recommended she stop working. Treatment would make her immunocompromised, and her job in a medical clinic could expose her to harmful pathogens, including the coronavirus.

Ms. Caputo went on disability and received $900 every 2 weeks. But that wasn’t enough to pay her mortgage, let alone cover her other monthly expenses as a single mother of 4 teenagers.

After finishing chemotherapy, and during radiation, Ms. Caputo went back to work, part time, against her doctor’s advice.

“My doctor is telling me I can’t work, but I also can’t have my house go into default,” said Ms. Caputo.

But being on her feet through 12-hour shifts made treatment side effects, especially back and joint pain, kick into overdrive. “The physicality of my job was really difficult to tolerate,” she said.

The physical burden was too great to take on more work, but the extra money also wasn’t enough to keep her afloat. Fortunately, her brother stepped in and covered 6 months of her mortgage payments.
 

Financial toxicity impacts families

Although financial toxicity research to date has largely focused on the patient, researchers are also starting to understand that family members and caregivers often share in the burden.

“We are just at the beginning of realizing that this is a real problem,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Chino and colleagues recently showed that family members of patients with cancer were more likely to delay or forgo medical care than family members of people without cancer. The study found the effect was greatest among family members of younger adults with cancer.

“The caregiver and family burden related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is really underappreciated,” said Dr. Chino. “Family members and caregivers are neglecting their own health concerns, passing up career opportunities, struggling with financial concerns.”

Dr. Chino speaks from personal experience. When her fiancé, later husband, was diagnosed with neuroendocrine carcinoma in 2005, Dr. Chino quit her job as art director at a television production company to take care of him.

The couple, both in their 20s, struggled to afford his care. Dr. Chino put her own dental, medical, and mental health care on hold. She never, for instance, went to physical therapy to address injuries sustained sleeping in hospital chairs and moving around her husband who was over 6 feet tall. At one point, she walked with a limp.

Dr. Chino’s husband passed away in 2007, and even 15 years later, her injury from sleeping in hospital chairs remains “a significant physical burden,” she said. But like many caregivers “I wasn’t really thinking about my own health.”

Danielle Hadfield, 35, an ED nurse in Rochester, N.Y., also delayed her own care when her mom got sick.

Ms. Hadfield quit her job shortly after her mom was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in August 2020. Ms. Hadfield knew her mom, who lived 3.5 hours away in Albany, N.Y., would need a lot of care in the upcoming months.

“I knew this was going to be the last year or so of her life, and I wanted to be there for her,” said Ms. Hadfield.

When Ms. Hadfield quit her job, she and her husband – who was self-employed – purchased health insurance coverage through the New York state marketplace. The monthly insurance payments for Ms. Hadfield, who was pregnant with her second child, her husband, and their toddler cost as much as the family’s monthly mortgage payments.

In addition to providing childcare for her young daughter and making frequent trips to Albany, Ms. Hadfield began a side business as a legal nurse consultant, working mostly at night, to replace a portion of her lost income. During this time, she began to experience pain attacks that would migrate through her body along with intermittent tongue and facial numbness. She ignored these health issues for nearly a year, until after her mother died in November 2021.

Only after her mother passed away did Ms. Hadfield begin seeking answers to her own pain. In September 2022, she finally got them. She had a nerve condition called small-fiber sensory neuropathy.

But even with a diagnosis, she is still facing more tests to root out the cause and understand the best treatment.
 

Is help out there?

What can physicians do to help patients and families at risk for financial toxicity?

Specific guidelines for dealing with financial toxicity do not exist in most professional guidelines, nor are there standard screening tools to identify it, said Dr. Li Smith.

These gaps put pressure on physicians to ask about financial barriers and concerns, but most do not know how to broach the topic or how to help. “Physicians may not know how to fix the problem or what resources exist,” Dr. Li Smith said.

Patients and family members, on the other hand, are often reluctant to bring up cost with physicians. Some may be ashamed to talk about their financial problems while others may fear doing so will prevent them from being offered the best possible treatments, said Ms. MacDonald.

But, experts say, financial toxicity needs to be dealt with head on. That means involving financial navigators or counselors and social workers who can, for instance, help patients and families find financial support for their basic living expenses.

From a research perspective, more clinical trials should include financial toxicity outcomes, said Joshua Palmer, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Palmer and colleagues recently showed that the number of radiation therapy clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints increased significantly from 2001 to 2020, though the absolute rate of inclusion remains low, at roughly 1.5% of radiation therapy-based clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints from 2016 to 2020.

“Financial burden is part of the broader discussion about shared decision-making,” said Dr. Palmer.

In shared decision-making, physicians discuss the risks and benefits of different treatment options, empowering the patient to make an informed choice with the physician.

What we want to avoid is patients feeling like they will get inferior care, if they have financial barriers, said Dr. Palmer.

And every little bit can help. In 2006, Ms. MacDonald started the Pink Fund – a nonprofit to help patients with cancer cover nonmedical cost-of-living expenses. Both Ms. Caputo and Ms. Dicks received grants from the Pink Fund. For Ms. Caputo, the funds covered 2 months of car payments and for Ms. Dicks, it covered 2 months of rent.

While the one-time grant was a big help, said Ms. Dicks, “cancer is an everyday thing.” And “we all deserve peace of mind” when trying to heal.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

When 32-year-old Brittany Dicks was diagnosed with stage II triple negative breast cancer in January 2022, she wasn’t worried about the cost of treatment. A medical assistant in Charleston, S.C., Ms. Dicks had full-time employment with health benefits.

But when she wasn’t able to work for several months because of chemotherapy and its side effects, Ms. Dicks lost her job. Her health insurance coverage ended in May. And although she filed for Medicaid at the beginning of June, it wasn’t approved until September.

Meanwhile, Ms. Dicks still needed treatment. She estimates that she ran up close to $20,000 in medical debt while finishing chemotherapy during the 4 months she was uninsured.

The surgeon she had seen since her diagnosis terminated her care when she could no longer pay her bills. That left her delaying a much-needed mastectomy.

“I don’t sleep at night,” said Ms. Dicks, a single mother of two young kids, ages 3 and 11. “Mentally, I’m drained. Just because I have cancer, doesn’t mean the bills aren’t due every month.”

As soon as she felt well enough over the summer, she started working as a part-time delivery driver for DoorDash to help pay for food and gas.

But that was just a Band-Aid. Even when her new insurance kicked in, covering the costs of daily life remained a struggle.

Ms. Dicks is still in deep medical debt. Her Medicaid has covered new medical expenses, and she hopes Medicaid will reimburse her for the debt she incurred over the summer while she waited for her coverage to kick in. So far, though, Medicaid has not touched her $20,000 debt.

“I fear that I’m not going to be able to dig out of this hole,” Ms. Dicks said.

Researchers who study the financial impacts of cancer have a term for Ms. Dicks’ experience: financial toxicity.

Financial toxicity is a catchall term for the burden many Americans with cancer experience.

“Financial toxicity is a multidimensional concept. There’s both a material burden and a psychosocial one,” said Grace Li Smith, MD, PhD, MPH, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Financial toxicity encompasses the direct costs of medical care, including copays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for treatment and medications as well as the indirect costs from loss of income or savings associated with cancer care.

Researchers are also now beginning to understand the psychological effects these financial burdens can have on patients and their family.

“Financial toxicity is not unique to the patient,” said Dr. Li Smith. It “very directly impacts the whole family or household.”
 

Stifling financial pressures

Early in her career, Dr. Li Smith was already seeing how her patients’ worries extended beyond their physical disease.

One of Dr. Li Smith’s first patients told her their greatest worry wasn’t whether the treatment would work or what physical toxicity to expect, it was how they would pay for their care.

“There was much more anxiety and true distress about the financial burden than about the treatment itself,” Dr. Li Smith recalled.

This fear about the costs of cancer care is well founded. In the United States, cancer treatment costs reached an estimated $150 billion in 2020 and continue to rise. Patients shoulder a significant portion of that burden – with one study estimating that patients paid $21 billion for their cancer care in 2019.

The burden is often compounded by decreased income. Between 40% and 85% of patients with cancer needed to take time off work or quit their jobs during treatment. And for those, like Dicks, who find themselves with no insurance, out-of-pocket costs can quickly skyrocket.

In fact, one study of newly diagnosed cancer patients over age 50 reported that more than 42% of patients fully depleted their financial assets and around 30% incurred debt by the second year of their diagnosis.

Younger adults may be even more financially vulnerable. A study of patients in Washington found that those under 65 – which represent about half of cancer cases – were two to five times more likely to declare bankruptcy than patients over 65.

Dr. Li Smith and colleagues have found that younger patients aged 18-64 experienced greater monetary hardships, which meant less money for food, worse adherence to medications, as well as greater distress and anxiety overall. In fact, younger adults were over 4.5 times more likely to encounter severe financial toxicity, compared with older adults, and about 4 times more likely to experience severe psychological effects from this burden.

The distress, if left unchecked, can spiral out of control.

Molly MacDonald had just gone through a financially devastating divorce in 2005 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Recently out of work and dealing with a $1,300 monthly COBRA premium, the mother of five had no financial safety net. She risked having her car repossessed and her utilities shut off.

“I gave tentative thought to how I could take my life and make it look like an accident,” said Ms. MacDonald. “I thought the kids would be better off without me.”

For some, the loss of income can be even more worrisome than the medical bills. Some patients may go back to work during treatment, often against medical advice.

When Stephanie Caputo, 43, of Monroe, N.J., began treatment for stage III breast cancer in 2021, her physician recommended she stop working. Treatment would make her immunocompromised, and her job in a medical clinic could expose her to harmful pathogens, including the coronavirus.

Ms. Caputo went on disability and received $900 every 2 weeks. But that wasn’t enough to pay her mortgage, let alone cover her other monthly expenses as a single mother of 4 teenagers.

After finishing chemotherapy, and during radiation, Ms. Caputo went back to work, part time, against her doctor’s advice.

“My doctor is telling me I can’t work, but I also can’t have my house go into default,” said Ms. Caputo.

But being on her feet through 12-hour shifts made treatment side effects, especially back and joint pain, kick into overdrive. “The physicality of my job was really difficult to tolerate,” she said.

The physical burden was too great to take on more work, but the extra money also wasn’t enough to keep her afloat. Fortunately, her brother stepped in and covered 6 months of her mortgage payments.
 

Financial toxicity impacts families

Although financial toxicity research to date has largely focused on the patient, researchers are also starting to understand that family members and caregivers often share in the burden.

“We are just at the beginning of realizing that this is a real problem,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Chino and colleagues recently showed that family members of patients with cancer were more likely to delay or forgo medical care than family members of people without cancer. The study found the effect was greatest among family members of younger adults with cancer.

“The caregiver and family burden related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is really underappreciated,” said Dr. Chino. “Family members and caregivers are neglecting their own health concerns, passing up career opportunities, struggling with financial concerns.”

Dr. Chino speaks from personal experience. When her fiancé, later husband, was diagnosed with neuroendocrine carcinoma in 2005, Dr. Chino quit her job as art director at a television production company to take care of him.

The couple, both in their 20s, struggled to afford his care. Dr. Chino put her own dental, medical, and mental health care on hold. She never, for instance, went to physical therapy to address injuries sustained sleeping in hospital chairs and moving around her husband who was over 6 feet tall. At one point, she walked with a limp.

Dr. Chino’s husband passed away in 2007, and even 15 years later, her injury from sleeping in hospital chairs remains “a significant physical burden,” she said. But like many caregivers “I wasn’t really thinking about my own health.”

Danielle Hadfield, 35, an ED nurse in Rochester, N.Y., also delayed her own care when her mom got sick.

Ms. Hadfield quit her job shortly after her mom was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in August 2020. Ms. Hadfield knew her mom, who lived 3.5 hours away in Albany, N.Y., would need a lot of care in the upcoming months.

“I knew this was going to be the last year or so of her life, and I wanted to be there for her,” said Ms. Hadfield.

When Ms. Hadfield quit her job, she and her husband – who was self-employed – purchased health insurance coverage through the New York state marketplace. The monthly insurance payments for Ms. Hadfield, who was pregnant with her second child, her husband, and their toddler cost as much as the family’s monthly mortgage payments.

In addition to providing childcare for her young daughter and making frequent trips to Albany, Ms. Hadfield began a side business as a legal nurse consultant, working mostly at night, to replace a portion of her lost income. During this time, she began to experience pain attacks that would migrate through her body along with intermittent tongue and facial numbness. She ignored these health issues for nearly a year, until after her mother died in November 2021.

Only after her mother passed away did Ms. Hadfield begin seeking answers to her own pain. In September 2022, she finally got them. She had a nerve condition called small-fiber sensory neuropathy.

But even with a diagnosis, she is still facing more tests to root out the cause and understand the best treatment.
 

Is help out there?

What can physicians do to help patients and families at risk for financial toxicity?

Specific guidelines for dealing with financial toxicity do not exist in most professional guidelines, nor are there standard screening tools to identify it, said Dr. Li Smith.

These gaps put pressure on physicians to ask about financial barriers and concerns, but most do not know how to broach the topic or how to help. “Physicians may not know how to fix the problem or what resources exist,” Dr. Li Smith said.

Patients and family members, on the other hand, are often reluctant to bring up cost with physicians. Some may be ashamed to talk about their financial problems while others may fear doing so will prevent them from being offered the best possible treatments, said Ms. MacDonald.

But, experts say, financial toxicity needs to be dealt with head on. That means involving financial navigators or counselors and social workers who can, for instance, help patients and families find financial support for their basic living expenses.

From a research perspective, more clinical trials should include financial toxicity outcomes, said Joshua Palmer, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Palmer and colleagues recently showed that the number of radiation therapy clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints increased significantly from 2001 to 2020, though the absolute rate of inclusion remains low, at roughly 1.5% of radiation therapy-based clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints from 2016 to 2020.

“Financial burden is part of the broader discussion about shared decision-making,” said Dr. Palmer.

In shared decision-making, physicians discuss the risks and benefits of different treatment options, empowering the patient to make an informed choice with the physician.

What we want to avoid is patients feeling like they will get inferior care, if they have financial barriers, said Dr. Palmer.

And every little bit can help. In 2006, Ms. MacDonald started the Pink Fund – a nonprofit to help patients with cancer cover nonmedical cost-of-living expenses. Both Ms. Caputo and Ms. Dicks received grants from the Pink Fund. For Ms. Caputo, the funds covered 2 months of car payments and for Ms. Dicks, it covered 2 months of rent.

While the one-time grant was a big help, said Ms. Dicks, “cancer is an everyday thing.” And “we all deserve peace of mind” when trying to heal.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A new study underscores the importance of COVID-19 and regular COVID-19 testing among adults with a recent cancer diagnosis.

The Indiana statewide study, conducted at the beginning of the pandemic, found that unvaccinated adults with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were nearly seven times more likely to die from any cause than uninfected adults with cancer.

“This analysis provides additional empirical evidence on the magnitude of risk to patients with cancer whose immune systems are often weakened either by the disease or treatment,” the study team wrote.

The study was published online in JMIR Cancer.

Although evidence has consistently revealed similar findings, the risk of death among unvaccinated people with cancer and COVID-19 has not been nearly as high in previous studies, lead author Brian E. Dixon, PhD, MBA, with Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, said in a statement. Previous studies from China, for instance, reported a two- to threefold greater risk of all-cause mortality among unvaccinated adults with cancer and COVID-19.

A potential reason for this discrepancy, Dr. Dixon noted, is that earlier studies were “generally smaller and made calculations based on data from a single cancer center or health system.”

Another reason is testing for COVID-19 early in the pandemic was limited to symptomatic individuals who may have had more severe infections, possibly leading to an overestimate of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In the current analysis, researchers used electronic health records linked to Indiana’s statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database and state vital records to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among 41,924 adults newly diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Most people with cancer were White (78.4%) and about half were male. At the time of diagnosis, 17% had one comorbid condition and about 10% had two or more. Most patients had breast cancer (14%), prostate cancer (13%), or melanoma (13%).

During the study period, 2,894 patients (7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

In multivariate adjusted analysis, the risk of death among those newly diagnosed with cancer increased by 91% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91) during the first year of the pandemic before vaccines were available, compared with the year before (January 2019 to Jan. 14, 2020).

During the pandemic period, the risk of death was roughly threefold higher among adults 65 years old and older, compared with adults 18-44 years old (aHR, 3.35).

When looking at the time from a cancer diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection was associated with an almost sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (aHR, 6.91). Adults 65 years old and older had an almost threefold increased risk of dying, compared with their younger peers (aHR, 2.74).

Dr. Dixon and colleagues also observed an increased risk of death in men with cancer and COVID, compared with women (aHR, 1.23) and those with at least two comorbid conditions versus none (aHR, 2.12). In addition, the risk of dying was 9% higher among Indiana’s rural population than urban dwellers.

Compared with other cancer types, individuals with lung cancer and other digestive cancers had the highest risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 1.45 and 1.80, respectively).

“Our findings highlight the increased risk of death for adult cancer patients who test positive for COVID and underscore the importance to cancer patients – including those in remission – of vaccinations, boosters, and regular COVID testing,” Dr. Dixon commented.

“Our results should encourage individuals diagnosed with cancer not only to take preventive action, but also to expeditiously seek out treatments available in the marketplace should they test positive for COVID,” he added.

Support for the study was provided by Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study underscores the importance of COVID-19 and regular COVID-19 testing among adults with a recent cancer diagnosis.

The Indiana statewide study, conducted at the beginning of the pandemic, found that unvaccinated adults with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were nearly seven times more likely to die from any cause than uninfected adults with cancer.

“This analysis provides additional empirical evidence on the magnitude of risk to patients with cancer whose immune systems are often weakened either by the disease or treatment,” the study team wrote.

The study was published online in JMIR Cancer.

Although evidence has consistently revealed similar findings, the risk of death among unvaccinated people with cancer and COVID-19 has not been nearly as high in previous studies, lead author Brian E. Dixon, PhD, MBA, with Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, said in a statement. Previous studies from China, for instance, reported a two- to threefold greater risk of all-cause mortality among unvaccinated adults with cancer and COVID-19.

A potential reason for this discrepancy, Dr. Dixon noted, is that earlier studies were “generally smaller and made calculations based on data from a single cancer center or health system.”

Another reason is testing for COVID-19 early in the pandemic was limited to symptomatic individuals who may have had more severe infections, possibly leading to an overestimate of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In the current analysis, researchers used electronic health records linked to Indiana’s statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database and state vital records to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among 41,924 adults newly diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Most people with cancer were White (78.4%) and about half were male. At the time of diagnosis, 17% had one comorbid condition and about 10% had two or more. Most patients had breast cancer (14%), prostate cancer (13%), or melanoma (13%).

During the study period, 2,894 patients (7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

In multivariate adjusted analysis, the risk of death among those newly diagnosed with cancer increased by 91% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91) during the first year of the pandemic before vaccines were available, compared with the year before (January 2019 to Jan. 14, 2020).

During the pandemic period, the risk of death was roughly threefold higher among adults 65 years old and older, compared with adults 18-44 years old (aHR, 3.35).

When looking at the time from a cancer diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection was associated with an almost sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (aHR, 6.91). Adults 65 years old and older had an almost threefold increased risk of dying, compared with their younger peers (aHR, 2.74).

Dr. Dixon and colleagues also observed an increased risk of death in men with cancer and COVID, compared with women (aHR, 1.23) and those with at least two comorbid conditions versus none (aHR, 2.12). In addition, the risk of dying was 9% higher among Indiana’s rural population than urban dwellers.

Compared with other cancer types, individuals with lung cancer and other digestive cancers had the highest risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 1.45 and 1.80, respectively).

“Our findings highlight the increased risk of death for adult cancer patients who test positive for COVID and underscore the importance to cancer patients – including those in remission – of vaccinations, boosters, and regular COVID testing,” Dr. Dixon commented.

“Our results should encourage individuals diagnosed with cancer not only to take preventive action, but also to expeditiously seek out treatments available in the marketplace should they test positive for COVID,” he added.

Support for the study was provided by Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study underscores the importance of COVID-19 and regular COVID-19 testing among adults with a recent cancer diagnosis.

The Indiana statewide study, conducted at the beginning of the pandemic, found that unvaccinated adults with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were nearly seven times more likely to die from any cause than uninfected adults with cancer.

“This analysis provides additional empirical evidence on the magnitude of risk to patients with cancer whose immune systems are often weakened either by the disease or treatment,” the study team wrote.

The study was published online in JMIR Cancer.

Although evidence has consistently revealed similar findings, the risk of death among unvaccinated people with cancer and COVID-19 has not been nearly as high in previous studies, lead author Brian E. Dixon, PhD, MBA, with Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, said in a statement. Previous studies from China, for instance, reported a two- to threefold greater risk of all-cause mortality among unvaccinated adults with cancer and COVID-19.

A potential reason for this discrepancy, Dr. Dixon noted, is that earlier studies were “generally smaller and made calculations based on data from a single cancer center or health system.”

Another reason is testing for COVID-19 early in the pandemic was limited to symptomatic individuals who may have had more severe infections, possibly leading to an overestimate of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, cancer, and all-cause mortality.

In the current analysis, researchers used electronic health records linked to Indiana’s statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database and state vital records to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among 41,924 adults newly diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Most people with cancer were White (78.4%) and about half were male. At the time of diagnosis, 17% had one comorbid condition and about 10% had two or more. Most patients had breast cancer (14%), prostate cancer (13%), or melanoma (13%).

During the study period, 2,894 patients (7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

In multivariate adjusted analysis, the risk of death among those newly diagnosed with cancer increased by 91% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91) during the first year of the pandemic before vaccines were available, compared with the year before (January 2019 to Jan. 14, 2020).

During the pandemic period, the risk of death was roughly threefold higher among adults 65 years old and older, compared with adults 18-44 years old (aHR, 3.35).

When looking at the time from a cancer diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection was associated with an almost sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (aHR, 6.91). Adults 65 years old and older had an almost threefold increased risk of dying, compared with their younger peers (aHR, 2.74).

Dr. Dixon and colleagues also observed an increased risk of death in men with cancer and COVID, compared with women (aHR, 1.23) and those with at least two comorbid conditions versus none (aHR, 2.12). In addition, the risk of dying was 9% higher among Indiana’s rural population than urban dwellers.

Compared with other cancer types, individuals with lung cancer and other digestive cancers had the highest risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 1.45 and 1.80, respectively).

“Our findings highlight the increased risk of death for adult cancer patients who test positive for COVID and underscore the importance to cancer patients – including those in remission – of vaccinations, boosters, and regular COVID testing,” Dr. Dixon commented.

“Our results should encourage individuals diagnosed with cancer not only to take preventive action, but also to expeditiously seek out treatments available in the marketplace should they test positive for COVID,” he added.

Support for the study was provided by Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Peripheral neuropathy is becoming an increasing focal point for clinicians when treating patients because of the plethora of causes to which the disorder has been attributed. Characterized by damage to the peripheral nervous system, peripheral neuropathy causes sharp, burning pain; numbness of the extremities that can travel proximally; muscle weakness; and an overall diminished quality of life. Rather than being a self-developing disease, peripheral neuropathy has mostly been identified as a symptom of causative disorders and therapeutic agents – making prevention and treatment extremely important for patients and providers.

DIABETIC PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

The most common cause of peripheral neuropathy is diabetes mellitus. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a symmetrical, length-dependent neuropathy that affects more than 50% of type I and type II diabetes patients.¹ Not only is DPN an initiating factor of foot ulcers and nontraumatic lower-limb amputation, but it also leads to a severely lower quality of life, financial burden, and increased risk of death after major surgical procedures.²

Diagnosis

Nerve-conduction studies are the preferred diagnostic tool for DPN; however, these studies are costly and difficult to conduct in a clinical setting.² Currently, such diagnostic tools as the 10-g monofilament and tuning fork are more commonly utilized to detect loss of protective foot sensation to decrease the risk of foot ulceration.² In addition, other common aspects of diagnosing DPN include assessment of symptoms in the patient’s hands or feet and patient-reported symptoms.

4

Neuropad, a 10-minute test, measures foot plantar-surface sweat production, indicated by a cobalt compound color change on the device. The test is advantageous because it is highly sensitive – 73% more sensitive than DPNCheck – and does not rely on patient response or require operator training.⁵ A study of Neuropad showed that a drier foot and, therefore, increased risk of foot ulceration correlated with greater abnormal readings on the device, which might indicate onset of more severe DPN in the future.⁶

Sudoscan measures sudomotor function in 3 minutes through an electrochemical reaction between stimulated sweat glands and electrodes.² A study performed in China in patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 394) showed that electrical conductance in the feet is associated with increasing risk and severity of symptoms of DPN in asymptomatic patients (r = 0.98 [95% confidence interval, 0.962-0.993]; P < .01) and might serve as a biomarker of DPN.⁷

Although these three techniques present favorable data, each is a nerve conduction study that can access only small-fiber nerves. Additional testing is required for larger-fiber nerves that are also affected by DPN.² Also, some of the studies of these devices have high heterogeneity and a small sample size. Further research utilizing these three methods should include larger sample sizes to appropriately assess any clinically significant patient outcomes.

Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), another potential technique for DPN screening, is a noninvasive ophthalmic device for assessing corneal small-fiber nerves. A study of patients with diabetes or obesity or both (n = 35) showed high reproducibility of corneal-nerve pathology identification using CCM.⁸ A larger-scale study showed that CCM can detect a reduction in corneal-nerve parameters in DPN patients, as well as in patients who have yet to develop DPN – thus demonstrating the technique’s ability to detect both early subclinical and established DPN.⁹ Once CCM is approved as a point-of-care device, it might provide a reliable, sensitive screening method for DPN as an early-intervention tool.
 

Therapeutic options

The three principal types of treatment for DPN are tricyclic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSNRIs). Only three medications are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the treatment of DPN: pregabalin, duloxetine, and the recently approved capsaicin patch. Some opioid analgesics, including extended-release tapentadol, are FDA approved for DPN-associated neuropathic pain; however, evidence of their efficacy is questionable, and they present a risk of addiction.¹⁰ Here, we focus on potential treatments for DPN and DPN-associated neuropathic pain.

Cinacalcet. Several potential treatments have been studied for alleviating DPN symptoms after progression. Cinacalcet is a calcimimetic agent that activates the adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase–endothelial nitric oxide synthase pathway, which mediates DPN development. The drug has shown evidence of improving sensorimotor function and restoring nerve function in human Schwann cells expressed in diabetes-induced mice.¹¹ In these animal models, cinacalcet improved tactile response when interventional mice were compared with a control group (P < .01).¹¹ Further research is necessary to determine similar efficacy in human subjects.

Traditional Chinese medicine. Recent studies have focused on traditional Chinese medicine and practice, such as acupuncture and moxibustion, for DPN.

Moxibustion is the technique of burning moxa floss (a plant also known as mugwort) on different points on the body, which is thought to alleviate disease. In a study performed on rats, moxibustion increased nerve velocity (P < .05) and preserved sciatic-nerve ultrastructure.¹² Research on the use of moxibustion is preliminary. A meta-analysis of available data found that all clinical studies took place in China, and results were therefore subject to high heterogeneity and small sample size.¹³ Previously, a lack of high-quality data prevented moxibustion from being considered a potential treatment.³ The technique has demonstrated potential benefit, but larger-scale and more rigorous studies must be utilized to verify its clinical efficacy.

Quercetin. This common dietary flavonoid is in development. In rat models with induced DPN, treatment produced significant neuroprotective effects, such as rescued mechanical withdrawal threshold, lowered nerve densities (P = .0378), and rescued lowered levels of reactive O₂ species (P < .0001), which contribute to neurotoxicity in many peripheral neuropathies.¹⁴ Another study of the anti-inflammatory effects of quercetin in rat models found significant lowering of inflammatory factors, including proteins encoded by toll-like receptor 4 and MyD88, and protein transcription factor nuclear factor kappa B (P < .001), which can be beneficial in the treatment of DPN.¹⁵ Future testing in human subjects might reveal similarly positive effects.

Vitamin B. A systematic review examined the therapeutic effects of vitamin B supplementation on DPN. Through a meta-analysis on 14 studies (N = 997), it was revealed that statistically significant improvements in pain and electrophysiological sensory outcomes were observed after vitamin B supplementation. However, the majority of the studies included in the analysis utilized combination therapies with different vitamins (such as vitamin D) and other vitamin B types. Furthermore, deficiencies in B vitamins – especially folic acid and vitamin B₁₂ – have been observed in diabetic patients, and may be the potential cause of DPN in them. The validity of the studies and their findings are weakened by this observation. Therefore, the clinical efficacy of individual B vitamin supplements must be evaluated in long-term, larger scale future studies that exclude those with B vitamin deficiency and DPN to minimize potential error.⁷¹

CHEMOTHERAPY-INDUCED PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

Another cause of peripheral neuropathy has been directly linked to particular chemotherapeutic agents. Platinum-based agents have been widely accepted as an ideal solution for slowing tumor progression; however, it has been established that platinum adducts within DNA are the cause of neuronal degeneration – specifically in dorsal-root ganglion neurons of the peripheral nervous system. In a 2010 meta-analysis in the United States, the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) was observed to range from 65% to 75%, depending on the platinum-based agent.¹⁶ This problem is often dose-limiting and can lead to cessation of treatment, causing patients physical and financial harm. CIPN can be acute or chronic, and symptoms affect motor, sensory, and autonomic function, which can lead to reduced quality of life.¹⁷

Diagnostic tools and strategies

A variety of avenues can be taken to assess whether a patient has CIPN. Because peripheral neuropathy is often subjective, it has been recommended that clinicians use patient-reported outcome measures in this setting, in the form of a questionnaire.

Common toxicity criteria. The most conventional measure of CIPN is the National Cancer Institute’s Common Toxicity Criteria, which grades severity of adverse effects on a scale of 1 to 5 and has been found to be statistically valid.¹⁸ This questionnaire assesses a patient’s neuropathic pain score and sensory deficits, and can detect other potential adverse findings, such as neutropenia.

Total neuropathy score. This commonly used questionnaire measures subjective autonomic, sensory, and motor symptoms on a scale of 0 to 4 for each item, with the individual item scores then summed. A score > 5 indicates CIPN.¹⁹ The tested validity of this measure shows that it has an inter-rater reliability of 0.966 and an intra-rater reliability of 0.986.¹⁹

Other questionnaires. The Neuropathy Screening Questionnaire, Treatment-Induced Neuropathy Assessment Scale, and Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Assessment Tool have been identified as means of understanding what a patient experiences following neurotoxic chemotherapy.¹⁸

Pain caused by CIPN can also be assessed with one of several general scales, such as the Neuropathic Pain Scale for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy (NPS-CIN), which identifies a patient’s level of pain on a scale from 0 to 4 on six items: intensity, unpleasantness, sharpness, depth, numbness, and tingling. This scale has been found to be reliable.¹⁸

Other scales that can be used are the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: Pain Quality Neuro, and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs.¹⁸

Other diagnostic tests. Tests to determine a chemotherapy patient’s functional ability regarding their extremities include postural stability tests, the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, the Fullerton Advance Balance (FAB) Scale, the 6-minute walk test, and the grooved pegboard test.

Nerve conduction studies have been identified as useful tools to assess the physiologic function of fibers, but are costly and used most often in research settings.¹⁸ Quantitative sensory testing and the Bumps test are used to assess threshold capacities for varying sensations. Nerve-imaging tools, such as high-resolution ultrasonography, magnetic resonance neurography, and positron emission and computed tomography, have been found to be successful in identifying nerve damage.¹⁸

Additionally, the accumulation of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the blood has been identified as a potential biomarker for CIPN following animal trials on rats.⁶⁹ Researchers conducted a double-blind trial where healthy rats were given doses of paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, and bortezomib and compared to vehicle-treated rats. Researchers found that there was a correlation between the onset of CIPN and levels of mtDNA, with 1-2-fold increases of mtDNA found in paclitaxel and oxaliplatin treated patients (P < 0.01).⁶⁹ Dysfunctional mitochondria can cause an increase in the activity of reactive oxygen species which results in damage to mtDNA; and abnormal bioenergetics, which may lead to irregular ATP production and result in cellular damage.

Navitoclax. The antineoplastic agent cisplatin is used to treat a variety of cancers, including ovarian, lung, head and neck, testicular, and bladder.²⁰ Using single-cell RNA sequencing of dorsal-root ganglion cells in mouse models that have been given human equivalent doses of cisplatin to induce peripheral neuropathy, a study identified that the drug was upregulating the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A gene (CDKN1A) and leading to overproduction of its product, the p21 protein.²¹ This is due to a cellular response to DNA damage that causes the dorsal-root ganglion sensory neuron to change into a senescence-like state to survive. Subsequently, accumulation of senescent sensory neurons correlates with induction of neuropathic pain and peripheral neuropathy. It has been established, in mouse models, that removing senescent cells has the potential to reduce or reverse peripheral neuropathy associated with cisplatin treatment.²¹

A study induced irreversible CIPN using cisplatin on mice that were subsequently treated with antineoplastic agent navitoclax (n = 5) or vehicle (n = 10). Using navitoclax, a broad-spectrum senolytic agent, the study examined the dorsal-root ganglia of the mice and found that CIPN was reversed following clearance of senescent cells, with baseline mechanical thresholds able to be reestablished without difference, compared with the control group (P = .7734).²² The investigators found that clearance of senescent cells using navitoclax proved a promising avenue toward mitigating CIPN. More studies should be completed to validate this treatment as an effective preventive.

NGF Monoclonal Antibody (Tanezumab). Tanezumab has been identified as a potential analgesic for CIPN having observed success during animal trials. This monoclonal antibody targets the NGF-TrkA pathway in a dose-dependent manner which results in a reduction of neuronal sensitivity and subsequently neuropathic pain (P < 0.05).⁷⁰ NGF is a peripheral pain mediator that has functional properties relating to inflammation and neuropathy. Therefore, by targeting this protein and inhibiting its activation, patients could potentially see a dramatic improvement in their quality of life following a CIPN diagnosis. This potential analgesic was observed to be successful for a variety of chemotherapeutic agents including cisplatin, vincristine, and paclitaxel.⁷⁰

SASP inhibitors. A second possible approach to neutralizing senescent cells would be by inhibiting the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP). This could be accomplished through the use of nuclear factor kappa B inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, bromodomain and extra-terminal (BET) inhibitors, and inhibitors of secretory factors, such as interleukin (IL)-6 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha.²³ Rapamycin, an mTOR inhibitor that is already used in clinical settings, has been found to reduce the inflammatory effects of senescent cells, expanding the lifespan of mice.²⁴ JQ1, OTX015, and ARV825 are BET inhibitors that have been found to block bromodomain-containing protein 4, thus inducing senescent cell death.²⁵ IL-6 inhibitors (for example, tocilizumab) and TNF alpha inhibitors (for example, adalimumab) are already used clinically and can mitigate the effects of SASP.^23,26 However, further studies are needed to examine potential adverse effects of this type of therapy.

Mitigation of oxaliplatin adverse effects. This platinum-based chemotherapeutic agent associated with peripheral neuropathy is primarily used to treat colorectal cancer and digestive-tract malignancies.²⁷ Oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN) can be acute or chronic, and causes neuropathic pain, autonomic nerve dysfunction, and hypersensitivity to cold, which lead to abnormal nervous system effects, such as peripheral paresthesia.

These symptoms derive from oxaliplatin’s effects on a variety of cellular mechanisms, and differ in chronic and acute OIPN. Acute OIPN includes abnormal changes to sodium, potassium, calcium, and transient receptor potential channels, which lead to dysregulation and dysfunction in peripheral neurons; glia activation associated with dysregulation of pain modulation, by reducing thresholds; and upregulation of the octamer-binding transcription factor (OCT) protein.

Chronic OIPN has been associated with damage to nuclear DNA by platinum adducts, mitochondrial dysfunction (due to oxidative stress), and neuroinflammation caused by glia activation and gut microbiota.²⁸

With increased understanding regarding cellular mechanisms affected in OIPN, treatment options are being established to prevent or reduce its effects. A treatment being tested for the treatment of OIPN is the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSNRI) antidepressant duloxetine.²⁹ In a clinical trial of 40 patients with gastrointestinal cancer, duloxetine was found to reduce cold sensitivity (P = .001), tingling or discomfort of hands (P < .002) and feet (P = .017), and peripheral neuropathic pain (P = .001), and was found to prevent paresthesia (P = .025).²⁹ The SNRI antidepressant venlafaxine has also shown that it can alleviate neuropathic pain and motor neuropathy in clinical trials.³⁰

Antioxidant agents, such as amifostine and calmangafodipir, have also been identified as possible preventive measures against OIPN. Amifostine prevents neuronal hyperactivation and nitrosative stress, while calmangafodipir modulates reactive O₂ species, regulates ion channels, and protects axons and the myelin sheath.^31,32

Treatments such as riluzole, lidocaine, and pregabalin have all shown promise in reducing the effects of OIPN by their action on potassium, sodium, and calcium channels, respectively.²⁸ A study conducted on mice (n = 565) with OIPN found that riluzole effectively mitigated motor and sensory deficits associated with the use of oxaliplatin.³³

TREK-1 and TRAAK, potassium channels that are important for thermal and motor sensitivity, and that act as silencing mechanisms to excitatory stimuli, were shown to degenerate following oxaliplatin treatment, leading to hypersensitivity. Riluzole performs its therapeutic function by activating TREK-1 and TRAAK channels and blocking excessive accumulation of glutamate. Following riluzole treatment, mice were observed to show a significant reduction in sensorimotor deficits. Interestingly, riluzole also aided in reducing depression associated with oxaliplatin (P < .01).³³ However, more studies are necessary to ensure the safety and efficacy of riluzole in humans.

Pyridoxine, pyridostigmine for vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy. Vinca alkaloids have also been identified as chemotherapeutic agents that induce peripheral neuropathy. One such agent, vincristine, which is used primarily to treat leukemia and brain cancer, has been observed to cause peripheral neuropathy, including motor, autonomic, and sensory symptoms, such as abnormal gait, mechanical allodynia, paresthesia, ptosis, and obstipation, and altered perception of stimuli.^34,35 These symptoms are caused primarily by the ability of vincristine to activate neuroinflammatory mechanisms in dorsal-root ganglia. This is caused by activation of nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain 3 (NLRP3)-dependent release of IL-1b and subsequent cleavage of gasdermin D and caspase-1 in macrophages (observed in mouse models). Vincristine activates the NLRP3 signaling cascade that results in production of proinflammatory cytokines, thus inducing symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.³⁶

Pyridoxine and pyridostigmine have been introduced as potential treatments for vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy. Following a clinical trial of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients, a study of 23 patients with vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy found statistical validity for using pyridoxine and pyridostigmine because the drugs improved the neuropathy score (P < .001).³⁷ However, more research is needed before implementing their use in point-of-care settings.
 

AUTOIMMUNE PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

Autoimmune peripheral neuropathies (APNs) occur when the immune system targets peripheral nervous system and its various cells. Although there is a wide range of conditions in this category of peripheral neuropathy, the two most common types – Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) – have been targeted for clinical research.

Guillain-Barré syndrome: Diagnostic tools and strategies

Guillain-Barré syndrome encompasses a variety of acute inflammatory polyneuropathies, including axonal motor, sensory, and autonomic neuropathies and Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS).³⁸ In particular, the anti-GQ1b ganglioside antibody is considered archetypical in APNs because it is detected in MFS patients and not found in normal and disease-control samples, which makes it a good clinical marker.³⁹

It is difficult to distinguish GBS from CIDP because the time frame of onset of maximum deficit of neuropathy – 4 weeks – can overlap with subacute CIDP symptoms.40 Current diagnosis is based on elevated levels of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins, which can increase fourfold 6 weeks into the early phase of disease, and nerve conduction studies.⁴⁰ However, electrodiagnostic readings and CSF protein levels are normal in 30% to 50% of patients in the first week after onset of disease and must be repeated in weeks that follow.⁴¹ A major disadvantage in the workup of suspected GBS is that the syndrome can be confirmed only several weeks after onset of symptoms.

Ultrasonography. A potential new diagnostic tool is serial peripheral nerve ultrasonographic (US) imaging. A pilot study of GBS patients (n = 16) showed that US can detect enlarged nerve cross-sections in median, ulnar, and sural nerves in the first 3 weeks of disease. Imaging performance was consistent with that of nerve conduction studies, and was advantageous because US is easier to perform and for patients to undergo.⁴²

Spinal inflammation. Another study hints at the importance of spinal-root inflammation as an early indicator of disease, especially when nerve conduction study readings are normal.⁴³ Further research is needed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of this diagnostic method in larger population groups.
 

Guillain-Barré syndrome: Therapeutic options

The standard of care for GBS in the United States is intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy and plasmapheresis, but there is no FDA-approved treatment.⁴⁴ Although the two treatments have been shown to be equally effective in early stages of disease, early relapses can occur with both. One study found that 20% of patients who underwent plasmapheresis relapsed.⁴⁰ Because nearly 50% of GBS patients do not respond to IVIG or plasmapheresis, the need is urgent for new therapies to decrease the risk of permanent disability.⁴⁵

Antibody therapy. Recent developments include the use of monoclonal antibodies against GBS. ANX005 is an immunoglobulin G4 recombinant antibody that inhibits complement component 1q (C1q). Activation of this protein triggers the classical complement cascade, a natural part of the innate immune system that is nonetheless inappropriately activated in some autoimmune diseases, leading to neurodegeneration as a consequence of tissue damage.

ANX005 was found to have high-binding affinity to C1q in human, rat, cynomolgus monkey, and dog sera in nonclinical trials, and demonstrated low cross-reactivity despite being a plasma protein present throughout human tissue. Furthermore, studies show that ANX005 can deplete C1q completely in the CSF of monkeys.⁴⁶ Phase 1b clinical trials in Bangladesh with GBS patients (n = 23) 18 to 58 years of age against a placebo group (n = 8) indicate that treatment is well tolerated. Drug-related serious adverse events were lacking and subjects’ GBS-Disability Score improved compared with placebo controls at week 1 (r² = 0.48; P < .0001) and week 8, when an improvement of three or more in the score was observed.⁴⁰

ANX005 is entering phase 2 trials, which are expected to be completed in 2023.⁴⁷

Eculizumab. This promising treatment is a monoclonal antibody against C5 convertase, an enzyme that catalyzes formation of C5b-9, a membrane attack complex in nerve membranes. Studies in mouse models showed that treatment could significantly improve symptoms of terminal motor neuropathy and completely block formation of membrane attack complexes.⁴⁸ Rats in this study were paralyzed by anti-GQ1b antibodies to emulate GBS pathogenesis.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial in Japan enrolled 34 patients (23 assigned to receive eculizumab; 11, to placebo); all were 18 years old or older and could not walk independently (3-5 on the GBS functional grading scale). Results showed that:

• Sixteen percent more patients receiving eculizumab treatment (n = 14; 42-78 years) than in the placebo group (n = 5; 20-73 years) could walk independently after 4 weeks.
• Fifty-six percent more patients in the functional group (n = 17; 52-90 years) than in the placebo group (n = 2; 20-52 years) could run after 6 months.49 While it is noted that the first portion of the trial failed to meet the predefined significance level, its long-term effects are observed to have therapeutic potential.

Eculizumab is in phase 3 clinical trials with primary data to be released in October 2022.⁵⁰

Alemtuzumab, which inhibits the CD52 gene, was found to alleviate symptoms and restore strength in a rapidly deteriorating patient with MFS and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. By week 4 of treatment, anti-GQ1B antibodies were eliminated. However, the cause of this patient’s MFS is unclear; recovery might have been the result of multiple factors.⁵¹

IgG inhibition. Additional ongoing studies include therapies geared toward the neonatal Fc receptor as a potential clinical target for IgG inhibition.⁵²

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP): Diagnostic tools and strategies

CIDP is the most common chronic APN and shares many similarities with GBS but differs in its responsiveness to corticosteroids, prognosis, and more. Lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria for CIDP has led to reliance on nerve conduction studies and clinical findings for making the diagnosis.⁵³

Guidelines. European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society guidelines have high sensitivity (81%) and specificity (96%) and are utilized as diagnostic criteria for CIDP; however, a survey found that these criteria may be underutilized in clinical practice – which might contribute to a high misdiagnosis rate.⁵⁴ Furthermore, although current diagnostic methods are dependent on CSF proteins, this disease is lacking a diagnostic biomarker, leading to easy overdiagnosis and unnecessary immunotherapy.⁵⁵

Electrodiagnostic testing, which is often used, is limited because it cannot evaluate small-fiber nerves, cannot access the CNS adequately, and does not provide a specific diagnosis.⁵⁶

Sphingomyelin in CSF. Recently, a study in Italy explored the potential of CSF sphingomyelin as a biomarker for CIDP and for GBS. Findings reveal that sphingomyelin levels can be used to diagnose more than 80% of APN cases in the clinical setting. Different levels were identified in GBS, acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, and typical and atypical CIDP patients. Additionally, sphingomyelin showed potential to diagnose the correct stage of disease. An increase in sphingomyelin in relapsing CIDP patients was noted, compared with what was seen in controls and stable CIDP patients.⁵⁷ Larger-scale studies are needed to further test the efficacy of this method.
 

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: Therapeutic options

First-line therapy for CIDP comprises prednisone, 60-100 mg/d, plasmapheresis, and IVIG, all of which have proved effective. Some patients respond better to one treatment than to others40; some have subpar response to all these treatments and are categorized as having refractory CIDP.⁴⁵

Although there are no newly approved treatments for CIDP, several show promise in ongoing clinical trials.

Rituximab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody being studied in two phase 2 clinical trials of efficacy for refractory CIDP with IgG4 autoantibodies, after showing potential efficacy.^58,59

Efgartigimod is an Fc fragment that blocks the neonatal Fc receptor, prevents lysosome degradation of IgGs, and thus allows them to be “recycled.”⁶⁰ These autoantibodies are crucial in disease pathology because lowering their concentration provides effective therapy.⁶¹ Phase 1 trials showed that repeated doses of efgartigimod reduced IgG levels in healthy volunteers by 50%. Repeated dosing lowered IgG levels, on average by 75% in serum, which was an effect that was sustained for an 8-week period.⁶² Phase 2 trials are recruiting, with a projected primary completion in 2023.
 

INFECTION-INDUCED PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

Infections have been identified as a primary cause of peripheral neuropathy. Infection-induced peripheral neuropathy has been associated with Lyme disease, Epstein-Barr and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, shingles, hepatitis B and C, diphtheria, leprosy, and rabies.⁶³ Extensive research on peripheral neuropathy has not been completed for most of the diseases, highlighting an unmet need for patients who experience this sequela of infection.

HIV is a well-documented viral cause of peripheral neuropathy. The most common symptom is distal sensory polyneuropathy, which affects more than 50% of patients with HIV.⁶⁴ The incidence of distal sensory polyneuropathy in HIV has been correlated with the use of antiretroviral therapy – specifically, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate – and with certain proteins secreted by the virus.⁶⁵ Symptoms include loss of sensory properties, neuropathic pain, and allodynia.⁶⁶

Diagnostic tools and strategies

Nerve conduction studies have primarily been used to diagnose HIV-induced peripheral neuropathy, as well as electrophysiological testing and noninvasive CCM. These assays can detect changes or abnormalities in large- and small-fiber nerves in HIV infection patients.⁶⁶

Therapeutic options

Studies in mouse models have illustrated how the Tat protein correlates with induction of motor and sensory distal symmetric polyneuropathy. Expression of Tat can lead to mitochondrial disruption, resulting in degeneration of sensory dorsal root ganglia and subsequent neuropathic pain.⁶⁷

Pirenzepine. Studies on mice have identified a potential treatment for HIV infection-induced peripheral neuropathy with pirenzepine, targeting the muscarinic subtype-1 receptor. Pirenzepine activates a molecular pathway that promotes neurite growth and mitochondrial function. Researchers found that, following treatment with pirenzepine (n = 6), there was marked reduction in mitochondrial degeneration and HIV-induced distal sensory neuropathy.⁶⁶ This outcome was due to the ability of pirenzepine to block the effects of Tat protein expression, leading to reversal of its neurodegenerative effects.

Exercise combined with analgesics has also been identified as a potential treatment for alleviating distal sensory polyneuropathy in HIV infection–induced peripheral neuropathy. In a 12-week study, researchers instructed subjects who were receiving a combination of HIV treatments, including tenofovir, lamivudine, and efavirenz, to perform aerobic and resistance exercises. This regimen was intended to improve peripheral nerve-conduction velocity and increase the density of nerve fibers and neurogenic branching.

The study identified baseline pain scores and divided participants into three groups: aerobic exercise (n = 45), resistance exercise (n = 44), and controls (n = 47), for whom the average level of pain was 2 on an ascending scale of 1 to 10. There was significant reduction in pain score in the experimental groups by the end of the study, as well as an increased sensory profile.⁶⁴ This study has elucidated a pain management therapy for HIV-induced peripheral neuropathy that can prove beneficial for patients.
 

CRYPTOGENIC SENSORY POLYNEUROPATHY

Also known as idiopathic neuropathy or small-fiber sensory peripheral neuropathy, cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) affects one-third of patients with peripheral neuropathy, in whom (despite extensive testing) no known cause of their condition is revealed.

Diagnostic tools and strategies

Applicable clinical and laboratory tests of any potential known underlying causes of neuropathy, including diabetes, hereditary disorders, and autoimmune disease, must be performed to rule out those causes and suggest an idiopathic cause.⁶⁸

Therapeutic options

There are no FDA-approved treatments for CSPN, as most treatments are geared toward neuropathic pain management, rehabilitation, and supportive care.⁶⁸ Due to a lack of research and data regarding these types of peripheral neuropathies, various studies suggest different first-line therapies. For example, anticonvulsants (pregabalin, gabapentin), antidepressants (duloxetine), and opioid-like compounds (tramadol) are all threapy options to treat DPN.³

Adequate data are lacking to support the efficacy of immunosuppressive therapy in CSPN.

Summing up

The combination of an understanding of a widening range of underlying diseases, advancements in cancer therapies, and the rising prevalence of diabetes have all led to an increasing incidence of peripheral neuropathy. Coupled with the fact that one-third of patients with peripheral neuropathy experience idiopathic neuropathy, this indicates that extensive studies must be undertaken to identify mitigation and prevention strategies for peripheral neuropathy. To summarize the landscape of treatment for peripheral neuropathy:

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Treatment for DPN comprises three FDA-approved products: pregabalin, duloxetine, and a higher (8%)-strength capsaicin patch.³ Pain-management therapies also exist to reduce diabetes-induced neuropathic pain, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and extended-release tapentadol.¹⁰

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy has yet to be effectively treated in humans; however, many trials are being completed in animals with promising results. Treatment for CIPN has been identified using senolytic agents, such as navitoclax,²² and through inhibition of SASP by a variety of agents, including ARV825, tocilizumab, and adalimumab.^23-26

Oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy. Research has identified a potential preventive agent in duloxetine, with human trials already showing efficacy and safety.²⁹ Animal models have shown progress studying antioxidant agents, such as amifostine³¹ and calmangafodipir,³² which target ion channels. In a similar mechanism of action, riluzole has been observed to reduce motor and sensory deficits and depression resulting from treatment with oxaliplatin.

Vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy. Progress has been seen in treating vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy with pyridoxine and pyridostigmine, which have improved neuropathy scores in trial subjects;³⁷ more studies must be completed before these agents can be established as effective therapy.

Autoimmune PN. There are no FDA-approved drugs to mitigate the peripheral neuropathy induced by GBS and CIDP; however, studies are being conducted to resolve this impediment. Potential treatments, such as ANX005, a recombinant antibody, and eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody, have both shown efficacy in human trials and provide a potential path toward treatment against peripheral neuropathy caused by GBS.^47,50 CIDP is currently treated using prednisone, plasmapheresis, and IVIG.⁴⁰ Clinical trials are studying the efficacy of rituximab and efgartigimod for CIDP.^58-60

Infection-induced peripheral neuropathy. Although many infections can induce peripheral neuropathy, HIV is most well documented and therefore was singled out for discussion in this article. Pirenzepine has been shown to promote neurite growth and reduce mitochondrial degeneration – both of which factors are associated with reduction of neuropathic pain.⁶⁶ Exercise and analgesics have also been found to mitigate the effects of HIV-induced distal sensory neuropathy, with pain scores being reduced.⁶¹

Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy. Research has yet to identify a causative agent of, or subsequent potential therapy for, CSPN. Increased knowledge about this neuropathy will, it is hoped, bring patients closer to a cure – beyond current pain mitigation strategies with anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and opioid-like compounds.³
 

Ms. Lee is a first-year master of science candidate in applied life sciences, with an emphasis on infectious diseases, and Mr. Kosacki is a first-year master of science candidate in applied life sciences, with an emphasis on translational research, both at Keck Graduate Institute Henry E. Riggs School of Applied Life Sciences, Claremont, Calif. Dr. Bhandari is professor of clinical sciences and Dr. Tran is professor of clinical sciences, Keck Graduate Institute School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.

References

1. Barrell K, Smith AG. Peripheral neuropathy. Med Clin North Am. 2019 Mar;103(2):383-97. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2018.10.006.

2. Selvarajah D et al. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy: Advances in diagnosis and strategies for screening and early intervention. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Dec;7(12):938-48. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30081-6.

3. Snyder MJ et al. Treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: An update. Am Fam Physician. 2016 Aug;94(3):227-334.

4. Sharma S et al. Assessment of diabetic neuropathy using a point-of-care nerve conduction device shows significant associations with the LDIFLARE method and clinical neuropathy scoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 Jan;9(1):123-31. doi: 10.1177/1932296814551044.

5. Zografou I et al. Validation of Neuropad in the assessment of peripheral diabetic neuropathy in patients with diabetes mellitus versus the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, 10g monofilament application and biothesiometer measurement. Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2020;18(5):517-22. doi: 10.2174/1570161117666190723155324.

6. Tentolouris N et al. Moisture status of the skin of the feet assessed by the visual test Neuropad correlates with foot ulceration in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(5):1112-4. doi: 10.2337/dc09-2027.

7. Mao F et al. Sudoscan is an effective screening method for asymptomatic diabetic neuropathy in Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. J Diabetes Investig. 2017 May;8(3):363-8. doi: 10.1111/jdi.12575.

8. Kalteniece A et al. Corneal confocal microscopy is a rapid reproducible ophthalmic technique for quantifying corneal nerve abnormalities. PLoS One. 2017 Aug;12(8):e0183040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183040.

9. Gad H et al. Corneal confocal microscopy for the diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Diabetes Investig. 2022 Jan;13(1):134-47. doi: 10.1111/jdi.13643.

10. Pop-Busui R et al. Diabetic neuropathy: A position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(1):136-54. doi: 10.2337/dc16-2042.

11. Chung YC et al. Calcimimetic restores diabetic peripheral neuropathy by ameliorating apoptosis and improving autophagy. Cell Death Dis. 2018 Nov;9(12):1163. doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-1192-7.

12. Li J et al. Therapeutic effects of moxibustion simultaneously targeting Nrf2 and NF-kB in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2019 Dec;189(4):1167-82. doi: 10.1007/s12010-019-03052-8.

13. Tan Y et al. Moxibustion for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Sep 26;99(39):e22286. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022286.

14. Xie J et al. Protective effect of quercetin on streptozotocin-induced diabetic peripheral neuropathy rats through modulating gut microbiota and reactive oxygen species level. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020 Jul;127:110147. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110147.

15. Zhao B et al. Quercetin reduces inflammation in a rat model of diabetic peripheral neuropathy by regulating the TLR4/MyD88/NF-kappa B signalling pathway. Eur J Pharmacol. 2021 Dec;912:174607. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.174607.

16. McWhinney SR et al. Platinum neurotoxicity pharmacogenetics. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8(1):10-6. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-0840.

17. Addington J, Freimer M. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: An update on the current understanding. F1000Res. 2016 Jun 22;5:F1000 Faculty Rev-1466. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8053.1.

18. Lustberg M, Loprinzi C, eds. “Diagnosis, Management and Emerging Strategies for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy: A MASCC Book.” Springer International Publishing; 2021.

19. Cornblath DR et al. Total neuropathy score: Validation and reliability study. Neurology. 1999 Nov;53(8):1660-4. doi: 10.1212/wnl.53.8.1660.

20. Aldossary SA. Review on pharmacology of cisplatin: Clinical use, toxicity and mechanism of resistance of cisplatin. Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal. 2019;12(1):7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bpj/1608.

21. Calls A et al. Cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy is associated with neuronal senescence-like response. Neuro Oncol. 2021 Jan;23(1):88-99. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa151.

22. Acklin S et al. Depletion of senescent-like neuronal cells alleviates cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in mice. Sci Rep. 2020 Aug;10(1):14170. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71042-6.

23. Watanabe S et al. Impact of senescence‐associated secretory phenotype and its potential as a therapeutic target for senescence‐associated diseases. Cancer Sci. 2017 Apr;108(4):563-9. doi: 10.1111/cas.13184.

24. Harrison DE et al. Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice. Nature. 2009 Jul 16;460(7253):392-5. doi: 10.1038/nature08221.

25. Wakita M et al. A BET family protein degrader provokes senolysis by targeting NHEJ and autophagy in senescent cells. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):1935. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15719-6.

26. Prattichizzo F et al. Anti-TNF-alpha treatment modulates SASP and SASP-related microRNAs in endothelial cells and in circulating angiogenic cells. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):11945-58. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7858.

27. Kang L et al. Oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy: Clinical features, mechanisms, prevention and treatment. J Neurol. 2021 Sep;268(9):3269-82. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-09942-w.

28. Yang Y et al. Targeting strategies for oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy: Clinical syndrome, molecular basis, and drug development. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Oct 22;40(1):331. doi: 10.1186/s13046-021-02141-z.

29. Rokhsareh S et al. Evaluating the effects of duloxetine on prophylaxis of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: A randomized double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2021 Nov 5;10781552211052646. doi: 10.1177/10781552211052646.

30. Farshchian N et al. Comparative study of the effects of venlafaxine and duloxetine on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2018 Nov;82(5):787-93. doi: 10.1007/s00280-018-3664-y.

31. Pereira AF et al. Amifostine protects from the peripheral sensory neuropathy induced by oxaliplatin in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2020 Sep 18;53(11):e10263. doi: 10.1590/1414-431X202010263.

32. Glimelius B et al. Persistent prevention of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy using calmangafodipir (PledOx®): A placebo-controlled randomised phase II study (PLIANT). Acta Oncol. 2018 Mar;57(3):393-402. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1398836.

33. Poupon L et al. Targeting the TREK-1 potassium channel via riluzole to eliminate the neuropathic and depressive-like effects of oxaliplatin. Neuropharmacology. 2018 Sep 15;140:43-61. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.07.026.

34. Mora J et al. Next generation ligand binding assays – Review of emerging technologies’ capabilities to enhance throughput and multiplexing. AAPS J. 2014 Nov;16(6):1175-84. doi: 10.1208/s12248-014-9660-1.

35. Starobova H, Vetter I. Pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Front Mol Neurosci. 2017 May 31;10:174. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00174.

36. Starobova H et al. Vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy is driven by canonical NLRP3 activation and IL-1-beta release. J Exp Med. 2021;218(5):e20201452. doi: 10.1084/jem.20201452.

37. Aydin Köker S et al. Effect of pyridoxine plus pyridostigmine treatment on vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A single-center experience. Neurol Sci. 2021 Sep;42(9):3681-6. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04970-w.

38. Bourque PR et al. Autoimmune peripheral neuropathies. Clin Chim Acta. 2015 Sep 20;449:37-42. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2015.02.039.

39. Paparounas K. Anti-GQ1b ganglioside antibody in peripheral nervous system disorders: Pathophysiologic role and clinical relevance. Arch Neurol. 2004 Jul;61(7):1013-6. doi: 10.1001/archneur.61.7.1013.

40. Dalakas MC. Autoimmune peripheral neuropathies, in Rich RR et al., eds., “Clinical Immunology.” 5th ed, (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019, pp. 903-915.e1). doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7020-6896-6.00067-3

41. Leonhard SE et al. Diagnosis and management of Guillain-Barré syndrome in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15(11):671-83. doi: 10.1038/s41582-019-0250-9.

42. Razali SNO et al. Serial peripheral nerve ultrasound in Guillain–Barré syndrome. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Nov;127(2):1652-6. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.06.030.

43. Gallardo E et al. Spinal nerve involvement in early Guillain-Barré syndrome: A clinico-electrophysiological, ultrasonographic and pathological study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Apr;126(4):810-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.06.051.

44. Islam Z et al. Inhibition of C1q, initiator of the classical complement cascade, by ANX005 for the treatment of Guillain–Barré syndrome: Results from a phase 1b study (763). Neurology. 2020 Apr;94(15 Suppl):763.

45. Hughes R et al.; FORCIDP Trial Investigators. Oral fingolimod for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (FORCIDP Trial): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Aug;17(8):689-98. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30202-3.

46. Lansita JA et al. Nonclinical development of ANX005: A humanized anti-C1q antibody for treatment of autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases. Int J Toxicol. 2017 Nov/Dec;36(6):449-62. doi: 10.1177/1091581817740873.

47. Annexon Inc. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of ANX005 in subjects with Guillain–Barré syndrome. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04701164. Updated Jan 8, 2021. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04701164.

48. Halstead SK et al. Eculizumab prevents anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathy in a murine model. Brain. 2008 May;131(Pt 5):1197-1208. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm316.

49. Misawa S et al. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Jun;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.

50. Alexion Pharmaceuticals. A phase 3, prospective, multicenter, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eculizumab in patients with Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04752566. Updated Feb 18, 2022. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04752566.

51. Tzachanis D et al. Successful treatment of refractory Guillain–Barré syndrome with alemtuzumab in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Acta Haematol. 2014 Aug;132(2):240-3. doi: 10.1159/000358292.

52. Satkowiak K, Smith AG. Guillain-Barré syndrome, in Roos KL, ed. “Emergency Neurology.” (Springer, Cham, 2021, pp. 225-50). Accessed Feb 23, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75778-6_12.

53. Gogia B et al. Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, in “StatPearls [Internet].” (Treasure Island (Fla.): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan). Updated Nov 22, 2021. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK563249.

54. Allen JA et al. Challenges in the diagnosis of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain Behav. 2018 Feb;8(3):e00932. doi: 10.1002/brb3.932.

55. Stino AM et al. Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy-diagnostic pitfalls and treatment approach. Muscle Nerve. 2021 Feb;63(2):157-69. doi: 10.1002/mus.27046.

56. Ginsberg MR et al. Using and interpreting electrodiagnostic tests. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 Nov 2;87(11):671-82. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19154.

57. Capodivento G et al. CSF sphingomyelin: A new biomarker of demyelination in the diagnosis and management of CIDP and GBS. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021;92(3):303-10. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2020-324445.

58. Shimizu S et al. Efficacy and safety of rituximab in refractory CIDP with or without IgG4 autoantibodies (RECIPE): Protocol for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Jan 4;9(4):e17117. doi: 10.2196/17117.

59. Plasma Exchange/Sandoglobulin Guillain-Barré Syndrome Trial Group. Randomised trial of plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and combined treatments in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Lancet. 1997;349(9047):225-30.

60. Zuercher AW et al. Next-generation Fc receptor–targeting biologics for autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev. 2019 Oct;18(10):102366. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2019.102366.

61. Sesarman A et al. The neonatal Fc receptor as therapeutic target in IgG-mediated autoimmune diseases. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2010 Aug;67(15):2533-50. doi: 10.1007/s00018-010-0318-6.

62. Ulrichts P et al. Neonatal Fc receptor antagonist efgartigimod safely and sustainably reduces IgGs in humans. J Clin Invest. 2018 Oct;128(10):4372-86. doi: 10.1172/JCI97911.

63. Peripheral neuropathy [symptoms and causes]. Mayo Clinic [Internet]. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/peripheral-neuropathy/symptoms-causes/syc-20352061.

64. Maharaj SS, Yakasai AM. Does a rehabilitation program of aerobic and progressive resisted exercises influence HIV-induced distal neuropathic pain? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 May;97(5):364-9. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000866.

65. Fields JA et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate induces peripheral neuropathy and alters inflammation and mitochondrial biogenesis in the brains of mice. Sci Rep. 2019 Nov 20;9(1):17158. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53466-x.

66. Han MM et al. Prevention of HIV-1 TAT protein-induced peripheral neuropathy and mitochondrial disruption by the antimuscarinic pirenzepine. Front Neurol. 2021 Jun 15;12:663373. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.663373.

67. Rozzi SJ et al. Human immunodeficiency virus Tat impairs mitochondrial fission in neurons. Cell Death Discov. 2018;4:8. doi: 10.1038/s41420-017-0013-6.

68. Pasnoor M et al. Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy. Neurol Clin. 2013 May;31(2):463-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2013.01.008.

Peripheral neuropathy is becoming an increasing focal point for clinicians when treating patients because of the plethora of causes to which the disorder has been attributed. Characterized by damage to the peripheral nervous system, peripheral neuropathy causes sharp, burning pain; numbness of the extremities that can travel proximally; muscle weakness; and an overall diminished quality of life. Rather than being a self-developing disease, peripheral neuropathy has mostly been identified as a symptom of causative disorders and therapeutic agents – making prevention and treatment extremely important for patients and providers.

DIABETIC PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

The most common cause of peripheral neuropathy is diabetes mellitus. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a symmetrical, length-dependent neuropathy that affects more than 50% of type I and type II diabetes patients.¹ Not only is DPN an initiating factor of foot ulcers and nontraumatic lower-limb amputation, but it also leads to a severely lower quality of life, financial burden, and increased risk of death after major surgical procedures.²

Diagnosis

Nerve-conduction studies are the preferred diagnostic tool for DPN; however, these studies are costly and difficult to conduct in a clinical setting.² Currently, such diagnostic tools as the 10-g monofilament and tuning fork are more commonly utilized to detect loss of protective foot sensation to decrease the risk of foot ulceration.² In addition, other common aspects of diagnosing DPN include assessment of symptoms in the patient’s hands or feet and patient-reported symptoms.

4

Neuropad, a 10-minute test, measures foot plantar-surface sweat production, indicated by a cobalt compound color change on the device. The test is advantageous because it is highly sensitive – 73% more sensitive than DPNCheck – and does not rely on patient response or require operator training.⁵ A study of Neuropad showed that a drier foot and, therefore, increased risk of foot ulceration correlated with greater abnormal readings on the device, which might indicate onset of more severe DPN in the future.⁶

Sudoscan measures sudomotor function in 3 minutes through an electrochemical reaction between stimulated sweat glands and electrodes.² A study performed in China in patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 394) showed that electrical conductance in the feet is associated with increasing risk and severity of symptoms of DPN in asymptomatic patients (r = 0.98 [95% confidence interval, 0.962-0.993]; P < .01) and might serve as a biomarker of DPN.⁷

Although these three techniques present favorable data, each is a nerve conduction study that can access only small-fiber nerves. Additional testing is required for larger-fiber nerves that are also affected by DPN.² Also, some of the studies of these devices have high heterogeneity and a small sample size. Further research utilizing these three methods should include larger sample sizes to appropriately assess any clinically significant patient outcomes.

Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), another potential technique for DPN screening, is a noninvasive ophthalmic device for assessing corneal small-fiber nerves. A study of patients with diabetes or obesity or both (n = 35) showed high reproducibility of corneal-nerve pathology identification using CCM.⁸ A larger-scale study showed that CCM can detect a reduction in corneal-nerve parameters in DPN patients, as well as in patients who have yet to develop DPN – thus demonstrating the technique’s ability to detect both early subclinical and established DPN.⁹ Once CCM is approved as a point-of-care device, it might provide a reliable, sensitive screening method for DPN as an early-intervention tool.
 

Therapeutic options

The three principal types of treatment for DPN are tricyclic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSNRIs). Only three medications are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the treatment of DPN: pregabalin, duloxetine, and the recently approved capsaicin patch. Some opioid analgesics, including extended-release tapentadol, are FDA approved for DPN-associated neuropathic pain; however, evidence of their efficacy is questionable, and they present a risk of addiction.¹⁰ Here, we focus on potential treatments for DPN and DPN-associated neuropathic pain.

Cinacalcet. Several potential treatments have been studied for alleviating DPN symptoms after progression. Cinacalcet is a calcimimetic agent that activates the adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase–endothelial nitric oxide synthase pathway, which mediates DPN development. The drug has shown evidence of improving sensorimotor function and restoring nerve function in human Schwann cells expressed in diabetes-induced mice.¹¹ In these animal models, cinacalcet improved tactile response when interventional mice were compared with a control group (P < .01).¹¹ Further research is necessary to determine similar efficacy in human subjects.

Traditional Chinese medicine. Recent studies have focused on traditional Chinese medicine and practice, such as acupuncture and moxibustion, for DPN.

Moxibustion is the technique of burning moxa floss (a plant also known as mugwort) on different points on the body, which is thought to alleviate disease. In a study performed on rats, moxibustion increased nerve velocity (P < .05) and preserved sciatic-nerve ultrastructure.¹² Research on the use of moxibustion is preliminary. A meta-analysis of available data found that all clinical studies took place in China, and results were therefore subject to high heterogeneity and small sample size.¹³ Previously, a lack of high-quality data prevented moxibustion from being considered a potential treatment.³ The technique has demonstrated potential benefit, but larger-scale and more rigorous studies must be utilized to verify its clinical efficacy.

Quercetin. This common dietary flavonoid is in development. In rat models with induced DPN, treatment produced significant neuroprotective effects, such as rescued mechanical withdrawal threshold, lowered nerve densities (P = .0378), and rescued lowered levels of reactive O₂ species (P < .0001), which contribute to neurotoxicity in many peripheral neuropathies.¹⁴ Another study of the anti-inflammatory effects of quercetin in rat models found significant lowering of inflammatory factors, including proteins encoded by toll-like receptor 4 and MyD88, and protein transcription factor nuclear factor kappa B (P < .001), which can be beneficial in the treatment of DPN.¹⁵ Future testing in human subjects might reveal similarly positive effects.

Vitamin B. A systematic review examined the therapeutic effects of vitamin B supplementation on DPN. Through a meta-analysis on 14 studies (N = 997), it was revealed that statistically significant improvements in pain and electrophysiological sensory outcomes were observed after vitamin B supplementation. However, the majority of the studies included in the analysis utilized combination therapies with different vitamins (such as vitamin D) and other vitamin B types. Furthermore, deficiencies in B vitamins – especially folic acid and vitamin B₁₂ – have been observed in diabetic patients, and may be the potential cause of DPN in them. The validity of the studies and their findings are weakened by this observation. Therefore, the clinical efficacy of individual B vitamin supplements must be evaluated in long-term, larger scale future studies that exclude those with B vitamin deficiency and DPN to minimize potential error.⁷¹

CHEMOTHERAPY-INDUCED PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

Another cause of peripheral neuropathy has been directly linked to particular chemotherapeutic agents. Platinum-based agents have been widely accepted as an ideal solution for slowing tumor progression; however, it has been established that platinum adducts within DNA are the cause of neuronal degeneration – specifically in dorsal-root ganglion neurons of the peripheral nervous system. In a 2010 meta-analysis in the United States, the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) was observed to range from 65% to 75%, depending on the platinum-based agent.¹⁶ This problem is often dose-limiting and can lead to cessation of treatment, causing patients physical and financial harm. CIPN can be acute or chronic, and symptoms affect motor, sensory, and autonomic function, which can lead to reduced quality of life.¹⁷

Diagnostic tools and strategies

A variety of avenues can be taken to assess whether a patient has CIPN. Because peripheral neuropathy is often subjective, it has been recommended that clinicians use patient-reported outcome measures in this setting, in the form of a questionnaire.

Common toxicity criteria. The most conventional measure of CIPN is the National Cancer Institute’s Common Toxicity Criteria, which grades severity of adverse effects on a scale of 1 to 5 and has been found to be statistically valid.¹⁸ This questionnaire assesses a patient’s neuropathic pain score and sensory deficits, and can detect other potential adverse findings, such as neutropenia.

Total neuropathy score. This commonly used questionnaire measures subjective autonomic, sensory, and motor symptoms on a scale of 0 to 4 for each item, with the individual item scores then summed. A score > 5 indicates CIPN.¹⁹ The tested validity of this measure shows that it has an inter-rater reliability of 0.966 and an intra-rater reliability of 0.986.¹⁹

Other questionnaires. The Neuropathy Screening Questionnaire, Treatment-Induced Neuropathy Assessment Scale, and Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Assessment Tool have been identified as means of understanding what a patient experiences following neurotoxic chemotherapy.¹⁸

Pain caused by CIPN can also be assessed with one of several general scales, such as the Neuropathic Pain Scale for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy (NPS-CIN), which identifies a patient’s level of pain on a scale from 0 to 4 on six items: intensity, unpleasantness, sharpness, depth, numbness, and tingling. This scale has been found to be reliable.¹⁸

Other scales that can be used are the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: Pain Quality Neuro, and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs.¹⁸

Other diagnostic tests. Tests to determine a chemotherapy patient’s functional ability regarding their extremities include postural stability tests, the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, the Fullerton Advance Balance (FAB) Scale, the 6-minute walk test, and the grooved pegboard test.

Nerve conduction studies have been identified as useful tools to assess the physiologic function of fibers, but are costly and used most often in research settings.¹⁸ Quantitative sensory testing and the Bumps test are used to assess threshold capacities for varying sensations. Nerve-imaging tools, such as high-resolution ultrasonography, magnetic resonance neurography, and positron emission and computed tomography, have been found to be successful in identifying nerve damage.¹⁸

Additionally, the accumulation of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the blood has been identified as a potential biomarker for CIPN following animal trials on rats.⁶⁹ Researchers conducted a double-blind trial where healthy rats were given doses of paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, and bortezomib and compared to vehicle-treated rats. Researchers found that there was a correlation between the onset of CIPN and levels of mtDNA, with 1-2-fold increases of mtDNA found in paclitaxel and oxaliplatin treated patients (P < 0.01).⁶⁹ Dysfunctional mitochondria can cause an increase in the activity of reactive oxygen species which results in damage to mtDNA; and abnormal bioenergetics, which may lead to irregular ATP production and result in cellular damage.

Navitoclax. The antineoplastic agent cisplatin is used to treat a variety of cancers, including ovarian, lung, head and neck, testicular, and bladder.²⁰ Using single-cell RNA sequencing of dorsal-root ganglion cells in mouse models that have been given human equivalent doses of cisplatin to induce peripheral neuropathy, a study identified that the drug was upregulating the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A gene (CDKN1A) and leading to overproduction of its product, the p21 protein.²¹ This is due to a cellular response to DNA damage that causes the dorsal-root ganglion sensory neuron to change into a senescence-like state to survive. Subsequently, accumulation of senescent sensory neurons correlates with induction of neuropathic pain and peripheral neuropathy. It has been established, in mouse models, that removing senescent cells has the potential to reduce or reverse peripheral neuropathy associated with cisplatin treatment.²¹

A study induced irreversible CIPN using cisplatin on mice that were subsequently treated with antineoplastic agent navitoclax (n = 5) or vehicle (n = 10). Using navitoclax, a broad-spectrum senolytic agent, the study examined the dorsal-root ganglia of the mice and found that CIPN was reversed following clearance of senescent cells, with baseline mechanical thresholds able to be reestablished without difference, compared with the control group (P = .7734).²² The investigators found that clearance of senescent cells using navitoclax proved a promising avenue toward mitigating CIPN. More studies should be completed to validate this treatment as an effective preventive.

NGF Monoclonal Antibody (Tanezumab). Tanezumab has been identified as a potential analgesic for CIPN having observed success during animal trials. This monoclonal antibody targets the NGF-TrkA pathway in a dose-dependent manner which results in a reduction of neuronal sensitivity and subsequently neuropathic pain (P < 0.05).⁷⁰ NGF is a peripheral pain mediator that has functional properties relating to inflammation and neuropathy. Therefore, by targeting this protein and inhibiting its activation, patients could potentially see a dramatic improvement in their quality of life following a CIPN diagnosis. This potential analgesic was observed to be successful for a variety of chemotherapeutic agents including cisplatin, vincristine, and paclitaxel.⁷⁰

SASP inhibitors. A second possible approach to neutralizing senescent cells would be by inhibiting the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP). This could be accomplished through the use of nuclear factor kappa B inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, bromodomain and extra-terminal (BET) inhibitors, and inhibitors of secretory factors, such as interleukin (IL)-6 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha.²³ Rapamycin, an mTOR inhibitor that is already used in clinical settings, has been found to reduce the inflammatory effects of senescent cells, expanding the lifespan of mice.²⁴ JQ1, OTX015, and ARV825 are BET inhibitors that have been found to block bromodomain-containing protein 4, thus inducing senescent cell death.²⁵ IL-6 inhibitors (for example, tocilizumab) and TNF alpha inhibitors (for example, adalimumab) are already used clinically and can mitigate the effects of SASP.^23,26 However, further studies are needed to examine potential adverse effects of this type of therapy.

Mitigation of oxaliplatin adverse effects. This platinum-based chemotherapeutic agent associated with peripheral neuropathy is primarily used to treat colorectal cancer and digestive-tract malignancies.²⁷ Oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN) can be acute or chronic, and causes neuropathic pain, autonomic nerve dysfunction, and hypersensitivity to cold, which lead to abnormal nervous system effects, such as peripheral paresthesia.

These symptoms derive from oxaliplatin’s effects on a variety of cellular mechanisms, and differ in chronic and acute OIPN. Acute OIPN includes abnormal changes to sodium, potassium, calcium, and transient receptor potential channels, which lead to dysregulation and dysfunction in peripheral neurons; glia activation associated with dysregulation of pain modulation, by reducing thresholds; and upregulation of the octamer-binding transcription factor (OCT) protein.

Chronic OIPN has been associated with damage to nuclear DNA by platinum adducts, mitochondrial dysfunction (due to oxidative stress), and neuroinflammation caused by glia activation and gut microbiota.²⁸

With increased understanding regarding cellular mechanisms affected in OIPN, treatment options are being established to prevent or reduce its effects. A treatment being tested for the treatment of OIPN is the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSNRI) antidepressant duloxetine.²⁹ In a clinical trial of 40 patients with gastrointestinal cancer, duloxetine was found to reduce cold sensitivity (P = .001), tingling or discomfort of hands (P < .002) and feet (P = .017), and peripheral neuropathic pain (P = .001), and was found to prevent paresthesia (P = .025).²⁹ The SNRI antidepressant venlafaxine has also shown that it can alleviate neuropathic pain and motor neuropathy in clinical trials.³⁰

Antioxidant agents, such as amifostine and calmangafodipir, have also been identified as possible preventive measures against OIPN. Amifostine prevents neuronal hyperactivation and nitrosative stress, while calmangafodipir modulates reactive O₂ species, regulates ion channels, and protects axons and the myelin sheath.^31,32

Treatments such as riluzole, lidocaine, and pregabalin have all shown promise in reducing the effects of OIPN by their action on potassium, sodium, and calcium channels, respectively.²⁸ A study conducted on mice (n = 565) with OIPN found that riluzole effectively mitigated motor and sensory deficits associated with the use of oxaliplatin.³³

TREK-1 and TRAAK, potassium channels that are important for thermal and motor sensitivity, and that act as silencing mechanisms to excitatory stimuli, were shown to degenerate following oxaliplatin treatment, leading to hypersensitivity. Riluzole performs its therapeutic function by activating TREK-1 and TRAAK channels and blocking excessive accumulation of glutamate. Following riluzole treatment, mice were observed to show a significant reduction in sensorimotor deficits. Interestingly, riluzole also aided in reducing depression associated with oxaliplatin (P < .01).³³ However, more studies are necessary to ensure the safety and efficacy of riluzole in humans.

Pyridoxine, pyridostigmine for vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy. Vinca alkaloids have also been identified as chemotherapeutic agents that induce peripheral neuropathy. One such agent, vincristine, which is used primarily to treat leukemia and brain cancer, has been observed to cause peripheral neuropathy, including motor, autonomic, and sensory symptoms, such as abnormal gait, mechanical allodynia, paresthesia, ptosis, and obstipation, and altered perception of stimuli.^34,35 These symptoms are caused primarily by the ability of vincristine to activate neuroinflammatory mechanisms in dorsal-root ganglia. This is caused by activation of nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain 3 (NLRP3)-dependent release of IL-1b and subsequent cleavage of gasdermin D and caspase-1 in macrophages (observed in mouse models). Vincristine activates the NLRP3 signaling cascade that results in production of proinflammatory cytokines, thus inducing symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.³⁶

Pyridoxine and pyridostigmine have been introduced as potential treatments for vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy. Following a clinical trial of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients, a study of 23 patients with vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy found statistical validity for using pyridoxine and pyridostigmine because the drugs improved the neuropathy score (P < .001).³⁷ However, more research is needed before implementing their use in point-of-care settings.
 

AUTOIMMUNE PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

Autoimmune peripheral neuropathies (APNs) occur when the immune system targets peripheral nervous system and its various cells. Although there is a wide range of conditions in this category of peripheral neuropathy, the two most common types – Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) – have been targeted for clinical research.

Guillain-Barré syndrome: Diagnostic tools and strategies

Guillain-Barré syndrome encompasses a variety of acute inflammatory polyneuropathies, including axonal motor, sensory, and autonomic neuropathies and Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS).³⁸ In particular, the anti-GQ1b ganglioside antibody is considered archetypical in APNs because it is detected in MFS patients and not found in normal and disease-control samples, which makes it a good clinical marker.³⁹

It is difficult to distinguish GBS from CIDP because the time frame of onset of maximum deficit of neuropathy – 4 weeks – can overlap with subacute CIDP symptoms.40 Current diagnosis is based on elevated levels of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins, which can increase fourfold 6 weeks into the early phase of disease, and nerve conduction studies.⁴⁰ However, electrodiagnostic readings and CSF protein levels are normal in 30% to 50% of patients in the first week after onset of disease and must be repeated in weeks that follow.⁴¹ A major disadvantage in the workup of suspected GBS is that the syndrome can be confirmed only several weeks after onset of symptoms.

Ultrasonography. A potential new diagnostic tool is serial peripheral nerve ultrasonographic (US) imaging. A pilot study of GBS patients (n = 16) showed that US can detect enlarged nerve cross-sections in median, ulnar, and sural nerves in the first 3 weeks of disease. Imaging performance was consistent with that of nerve conduction studies, and was advantageous because US is easier to perform and for patients to undergo.⁴²

Spinal inflammation. Another study hints at the importance of spinal-root inflammation as an early indicator of disease, especially when nerve conduction study readings are normal.⁴³ Further research is needed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of this diagnostic method in larger population groups.
 

Guillain-Barré syndrome: Therapeutic options

The standard of care for GBS in the United States is intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy and plasmapheresis, but there is no FDA-approved treatment.⁴⁴ Although the two treatments have been shown to be equally effective in early stages of disease, early relapses can occur with both. One study found that 20% of patients who underwent plasmapheresis relapsed.⁴⁰ Because nearly 50% of GBS patients do not respond to IVIG or plasmapheresis, the need is urgent for new therapies to decrease the risk of permanent disability.⁴⁵

Antibody therapy. Recent developments include the use of monoclonal antibodies against GBS. ANX005 is an immunoglobulin G4 recombinant antibody that inhibits complement component 1q (C1q). Activation of this protein triggers the classical complement cascade, a natural part of the innate immune system that is nonetheless inappropriately activated in some autoimmune diseases, leading to neurodegeneration as a consequence of tissue damage.

ANX005 was found to have high-binding affinity to C1q in human, rat, cynomolgus monkey, and dog sera in nonclinical trials, and demonstrated low cross-reactivity despite being a plasma protein present throughout human tissue. Furthermore, studies show that ANX005 can deplete C1q completely in the CSF of monkeys.⁴⁶ Phase 1b clinical trials in Bangladesh with GBS patients (n = 23) 18 to 58 years of age against a placebo group (n = 8) indicate that treatment is well tolerated. Drug-related serious adverse events were lacking and subjects’ GBS-Disability Score improved compared with placebo controls at week 1 (r² = 0.48; P < .0001) and week 8, when an improvement of three or more in the score was observed.⁴⁰

ANX005 is entering phase 2 trials, which are expected to be completed in 2023.⁴⁷

Eculizumab. This promising treatment is a monoclonal antibody against C5 convertase, an enzyme that catalyzes formation of C5b-9, a membrane attack complex in nerve membranes. Studies in mouse models showed that treatment could significantly improve symptoms of terminal motor neuropathy and completely block formation of membrane attack complexes.⁴⁸ Rats in this study were paralyzed by anti-GQ1b antibodies to emulate GBS pathogenesis.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial in Japan enrolled 34 patients (23 assigned to receive eculizumab; 11, to placebo); all were 18 years old or older and could not walk independently (3-5 on the GBS functional grading scale). Results showed that:

• Sixteen percent more patients receiving eculizumab treatment (n = 14; 42-78 years) than in the placebo group (n = 5; 20-73 years) could walk independently after 4 weeks.
• Fifty-six percent more patients in the functional group (n = 17; 52-90 years) than in the placebo group (n = 2; 20-52 years) could run after 6 months.49 While it is noted that the first portion of the trial failed to meet the predefined significance level, its long-term effects are observed to have therapeutic potential.

Eculizumab is in phase 3 clinical trials with primary data to be released in October 2022.⁵⁰

Alemtuzumab, which inhibits the CD52 gene, was found to alleviate symptoms and restore strength in a rapidly deteriorating patient with MFS and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. By week 4 of treatment, anti-GQ1B antibodies were eliminated. However, the cause of this patient’s MFS is unclear; recovery might have been the result of multiple factors.⁵¹

IgG inhibition. Additional ongoing studies include therapies geared toward the neonatal Fc receptor as a potential clinical target for IgG inhibition.⁵²

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP): Diagnostic tools and strategies

CIDP is the most common chronic APN and shares many similarities with GBS but differs in its responsiveness to corticosteroids, prognosis, and more. Lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria for CIDP has led to reliance on nerve conduction studies and clinical findings for making the diagnosis.⁵³

Guidelines. European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society guidelines have high sensitivity (81%) and specificity (96%) and are utilized as diagnostic criteria for CIDP; however, a survey found that these criteria may be underutilized in clinical practice – which might contribute to a high misdiagnosis rate.⁵⁴ Furthermore, although current diagnostic methods are dependent on CSF proteins, this disease is lacking a diagnostic biomarker, leading to easy overdiagnosis and unnecessary immunotherapy.⁵⁵

Electrodiagnostic testing, which is often used, is limited because it cannot evaluate small-fiber nerves, cannot access the CNS adequately, and does not provide a specific diagnosis.⁵⁶

Sphingomyelin in CSF. Recently, a study in Italy explored the potential of CSF sphingomyelin as a biomarker for CIDP and for GBS. Findings reveal that sphingomyelin levels can be used to diagnose more than 80% of APN cases in the clinical setting. Different levels were identified in GBS, acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, and typical and atypical CIDP patients. Additionally, sphingomyelin showed potential to diagnose the correct stage of disease. An increase in sphingomyelin in relapsing CIDP patients was noted, compared with what was seen in controls and stable CIDP patients.⁵⁷ Larger-scale studies are needed to further test the efficacy of this method.
 

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: Therapeutic options

First-line therapy for CIDP comprises prednisone, 60-100 mg/d, plasmapheresis, and IVIG, all of which have proved effective. Some patients respond better to one treatment than to others40; some have subpar response to all these treatments and are categorized as having refractory CIDP.⁴⁵

Although there are no newly approved treatments for CIDP, several show promise in ongoing clinical trials.

Rituximab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody being studied in two phase 2 clinical trials of efficacy for refractory CIDP with IgG4 autoantibodies, after showing potential efficacy.^58,59

Efgartigimod is an Fc fragment that blocks the neonatal Fc receptor, prevents lysosome degradation of IgGs, and thus allows them to be “recycled.”⁶⁰ These autoantibodies are crucial in disease pathology because lowering their concentration provides effective therapy.⁶¹ Phase 1 trials showed that repeated doses of efgartigimod reduced IgG levels in healthy volunteers by 50%. Repeated dosing lowered IgG levels, on average by 75% in serum, which was an effect that was sustained for an 8-week period.⁶² Phase 2 trials are recruiting, with a projected primary completion in 2023.
 

INFECTION-INDUCED PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

Infections have been identified as a primary cause of peripheral neuropathy. Infection-induced peripheral neuropathy has been associated with Lyme disease, Epstein-Barr and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, shingles, hepatitis B and C, diphtheria, leprosy, and rabies.⁶³ Extensive research on peripheral neuropathy has not been completed for most of the diseases, highlighting an unmet need for patients who experience this sequela of infection.

HIV is a well-documented viral cause of peripheral neuropathy. The most common symptom is distal sensory polyneuropathy, which affects more than 50% of patients with HIV.⁶⁴ The incidence of distal sensory polyneuropathy in HIV has been correlated with the use of antiretroviral therapy – specifically, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate – and with certain proteins secreted by the virus.⁶⁵ Symptoms include loss of sensory properties, neuropathic pain, and allodynia.⁶⁶

Diagnostic tools and strategies

Nerve conduction studies have primarily been used to diagnose HIV-induced peripheral neuropathy, as well as electrophysiological testing and noninvasive CCM. These assays can detect changes or abnormalities in large- and small-fiber nerves in HIV infection patients.⁶⁶

Therapeutic options

Studies in mouse models have illustrated how the Tat protein correlates with induction of motor and sensory distal symmetric polyneuropathy. Expression of Tat can lead to mitochondrial disruption, resulting in degeneration of sensory dorsal root ganglia and subsequent neuropathic pain.⁶⁷

Pirenzepine. Studies on mice have identified a potential treatment for HIV infection-induced peripheral neuropathy with pirenzepine, targeting the muscarinic subtype-1 receptor. Pirenzepine activates a molecular pathway that promotes neurite growth and mitochondrial function. Researchers found that, following treatment with pirenzepine (n = 6), there was marked reduction in mitochondrial degeneration and HIV-induced distal sensory neuropathy.⁶⁶ This outcome was due to the ability of pirenzepine to block the effects of Tat protein expression, leading to reversal of its neurodegenerative effects.

Exercise combined with analgesics has also been identified as a potential treatment for alleviating distal sensory polyneuropathy in HIV infection–induced peripheral neuropathy. In a 12-week study, researchers instructed subjects who were receiving a combination of HIV treatments, including tenofovir, lamivudine, and efavirenz, to perform aerobic and resistance exercises. This regimen was intended to improve peripheral nerve-conduction velocity and increase the density of nerve fibers and neurogenic branching.

The study identified baseline pain scores and divided participants into three groups: aerobic exercise (n = 45), resistance exercise (n = 44), and controls (n = 47), for whom the average level of pain was 2 on an ascending scale of 1 to 10. There was significant reduction in pain score in the experimental groups by the end of the study, as well as an increased sensory profile.⁶⁴ This study has elucidated a pain management therapy for HIV-induced peripheral neuropathy that can prove beneficial for patients.
 

CRYPTOGENIC SENSORY POLYNEUROPATHY

Also known as idiopathic neuropathy or small-fiber sensory peripheral neuropathy, cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) affects one-third of patients with peripheral neuropathy, in whom (despite extensive testing) no known cause of their condition is revealed.

Diagnostic tools and strategies

Applicable clinical and laboratory tests of any potential known underlying causes of neuropathy, including diabetes, hereditary disorders, and autoimmune disease, must be performed to rule out those causes and suggest an idiopathic cause.⁶⁸

Therapeutic options

There are no FDA-approved treatments for CSPN, as most treatments are geared toward neuropathic pain management, rehabilitation, and supportive care.⁶⁸ Due to a lack of research and data regarding these types of peripheral neuropathies, various studies suggest different first-line therapies. For example, anticonvulsants (pregabalin, gabapentin), antidepressants (duloxetine), and opioid-like compounds (tramadol) are all threapy options to treat DPN.³

Adequate data are lacking to support the efficacy of immunosuppressive therapy in CSPN.

Summing up

The combination of an understanding of a widening range of underlying diseases, advancements in cancer therapies, and the rising prevalence of diabetes have all led to an increasing incidence of peripheral neuropathy. Coupled with the fact that one-third of patients with peripheral neuropathy experience idiopathic neuropathy, this indicates that extensive studies must be undertaken to identify mitigation and prevention strategies for peripheral neuropathy. To summarize the landscape of treatment for peripheral neuropathy:

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Treatment for DPN comprises three FDA-approved products: pregabalin, duloxetine, and a higher (8%)-strength capsaicin patch.³ Pain-management therapies also exist to reduce diabetes-induced neuropathic pain, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and extended-release tapentadol.¹⁰

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy has yet to be effectively treated in humans; however, many trials are being completed in animals with promising results. Treatment for CIPN has been identified using senolytic agents, such as navitoclax,²² and through inhibition of SASP by a variety of agents, including ARV825, tocilizumab, and adalimumab.^23-26

Oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy. Research has identified a potential preventive agent in duloxetine, with human trials already showing efficacy and safety.²⁹ Animal models have shown progress studying antioxidant agents, such as amifostine³¹ and calmangafodipir,³² which target ion channels. In a similar mechanism of action, riluzole has been observed to reduce motor and sensory deficits and depression resulting from treatment with oxaliplatin.

Vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy. Progress has been seen in treating vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy with pyridoxine and pyridostigmine, which have improved neuropathy scores in trial subjects;³⁷ more studies must be completed before these agents can be established as effective therapy.

Autoimmune PN. There are no FDA-approved drugs to mitigate the peripheral neuropathy induced by GBS and CIDP; however, studies are being conducted to resolve this impediment. Potential treatments, such as ANX005, a recombinant antibody, and eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody, have both shown efficacy in human trials and provide a potential path toward treatment against peripheral neuropathy caused by GBS.^47,50 CIDP is currently treated using prednisone, plasmapheresis, and IVIG.⁴⁰ Clinical trials are studying the efficacy of rituximab and efgartigimod for CIDP.^58-60

Infection-induced peripheral neuropathy. Although many infections can induce peripheral neuropathy, HIV is most well documented and therefore was singled out for discussion in this article. Pirenzepine has been shown to promote neurite growth and reduce mitochondrial degeneration – both of which factors are associated with reduction of neuropathic pain.⁶⁶ Exercise and analgesics have also been found to mitigate the effects of HIV-induced distal sensory neuropathy, with pain scores being reduced.⁶¹

Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy. Research has yet to identify a causative agent of, or subsequent potential therapy for, CSPN. Increased knowledge about this neuropathy will, it is hoped, bring patients closer to a cure – beyond current pain mitigation strategies with anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and opioid-like compounds.³
 

Ms. Lee is a first-year master of science candidate in applied life sciences, with an emphasis on infectious diseases, and Mr. Kosacki is a first-year master of science candidate in applied life sciences, with an emphasis on translational research, both at Keck Graduate Institute Henry E. Riggs School of Applied Life Sciences, Claremont, Calif. Dr. Bhandari is professor of clinical sciences and Dr. Tran is professor of clinical sciences, Keck Graduate Institute School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.

References

1. Barrell K, Smith AG. Peripheral neuropathy. Med Clin North Am. 2019 Mar;103(2):383-97. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2018.10.006.

2. Selvarajah D et al. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy: Advances in diagnosis and strategies for screening and early intervention. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Dec;7(12):938-48. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30081-6.

3. Snyder MJ et al. Treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: An update. Am Fam Physician. 2016 Aug;94(3):227-334.

4. Sharma S et al. Assessment of diabetic neuropathy using a point-of-care nerve conduction device shows significant associations with the LDIFLARE method and clinical neuropathy scoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 Jan;9(1):123-31. doi: 10.1177/1932296814551044.

5. Zografou I et al. Validation of Neuropad in the assessment of peripheral diabetic neuropathy in patients with diabetes mellitus versus the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, 10g monofilament application and biothesiometer measurement. Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2020;18(5):517-22. doi: 10.2174/1570161117666190723155324.

6. Tentolouris N et al. Moisture status of the skin of the feet assessed by the visual test Neuropad correlates with foot ulceration in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(5):1112-4. doi: 10.2337/dc09-2027.

7. Mao F et al. Sudoscan is an effective screening method for asymptomatic diabetic neuropathy in Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. J Diabetes Investig. 2017 May;8(3):363-8. doi: 10.1111/jdi.12575.

8. Kalteniece A et al. Corneal confocal microscopy is a rapid reproducible ophthalmic technique for quantifying corneal nerve abnormalities. PLoS One. 2017 Aug;12(8):e0183040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183040.

9. Gad H et al. Corneal confocal microscopy for the diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Diabetes Investig. 2022 Jan;13(1):134-47. doi: 10.1111/jdi.13643.

10. Pop-Busui R et al. Diabetic neuropathy: A position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(1):136-54. doi: 10.2337/dc16-2042.

11. Chung YC et al. Calcimimetic restores diabetic peripheral neuropathy by ameliorating apoptosis and improving autophagy. Cell Death Dis. 2018 Nov;9(12):1163. doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-1192-7.

12. Li J et al. Therapeutic effects of moxibustion simultaneously targeting Nrf2 and NF-kB in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2019 Dec;189(4):1167-82. doi: 10.1007/s12010-019-03052-8.

13. Tan Y et al. Moxibustion for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Sep 26;99(39):e22286. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022286.

14. Xie J et al. Protective effect of quercetin on streptozotocin-induced diabetic peripheral neuropathy rats through modulating gut microbiota and reactive oxygen species level. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020 Jul;127:110147. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110147.

15. Zhao B et al. Quercetin reduces inflammation in a rat model of diabetic peripheral neuropathy by regulating the TLR4/MyD88/NF-kappa B signalling pathway. Eur J Pharmacol. 2021 Dec;912:174607. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.174607.

16. McWhinney SR et al. Platinum neurotoxicity pharmacogenetics. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8(1):10-6. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-0840.

17. Addington J, Freimer M. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: An update on the current understanding. F1000Res. 2016 Jun 22;5:F1000 Faculty Rev-1466. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8053.1.

18. Lustberg M, Loprinzi C, eds. “Diagnosis, Management and Emerging Strategies for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy: A MASCC Book.” Springer International Publishing; 2021.

19. Cornblath DR et al. Total neuropathy score: Validation and reliability study. Neurology. 1999 Nov;53(8):1660-4. doi: 10.1212/wnl.53.8.1660.

20. Aldossary SA. Review on pharmacology of cisplatin: Clinical use, toxicity and mechanism of resistance of cisplatin. Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal. 2019;12(1):7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bpj/1608.

21. Calls A et al. Cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy is associated with neuronal senescence-like response. Neuro Oncol. 2021 Jan;23(1):88-99. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa151.

22. Acklin S et al. Depletion of senescent-like neuronal cells alleviates cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in mice. Sci Rep. 2020 Aug;10(1):14170. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71042-6.

23. Watanabe S et al. Impact of senescence‐associated secretory phenotype and its potential as a therapeutic target for senescence‐associated diseases. Cancer Sci. 2017 Apr;108(4):563-9. doi: 10.1111/cas.13184.

24. Harrison DE et al. Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice. Nature. 2009 Jul 16;460(7253):392-5. doi: 10.1038/nature08221.

25. Wakita M et al. A BET family protein degrader provokes senolysis by targeting NHEJ and autophagy in senescent cells. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):1935. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15719-6.

26. Prattichizzo F et al. Anti-TNF-alpha treatment modulates SASP and SASP-related microRNAs in endothelial cells and in circulating angiogenic cells. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):11945-58. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7858.

27. Kang L et al. Oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy: Clinical features, mechanisms, prevention and treatment. J Neurol. 2021 Sep;268(9):3269-82. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-09942-w.

28. Yang Y et al. Targeting strategies for oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy: Clinical syndrome, molecular basis, and drug development. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Oct 22;40(1):331. doi: 10.1186/s13046-021-02141-z.

29. Rokhsareh S et al. Evaluating the effects of duloxetine on prophylaxis of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: A randomized double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2021 Nov 5;10781552211052646. doi: 10.1177/10781552211052646.

30. Farshchian N et al. Comparative study of the effects of venlafaxine and duloxetine on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2018 Nov;82(5):787-93. doi: 10.1007/s00280-018-3664-y.

31. Pereira AF et al. Amifostine protects from the peripheral sensory neuropathy induced by oxaliplatin in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2020 Sep 18;53(11):e10263. doi: 10.1590/1414-431X202010263.

32. Glimelius B et al. Persistent prevention of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy using calmangafodipir (PledOx®): A placebo-controlled randomised phase II study (PLIANT). Acta Oncol. 2018 Mar;57(3):393-402. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1398836.

33. Poupon L et al. Targeting the TREK-1 potassium channel via riluzole to eliminate the neuropathic and depressive-like effects of oxaliplatin. Neuropharmacology. 2018 Sep 15;140:43-61. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.07.026.

34. Mora J et al. Next generation ligand binding assays – Review of emerging technologies’ capabilities to enhance throughput and multiplexing. AAPS J. 2014 Nov;16(6):1175-84. doi: 10.1208/s12248-014-9660-1.

35. Starobova H, Vetter I. Pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Front Mol Neurosci. 2017 May 31;10:174. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00174.

36. Starobova H et al. Vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy is driven by canonical NLRP3 activation and IL-1-beta release. J Exp Med. 2021;218(5):e20201452. doi: 10.1084/jem.20201452.

37. Aydin Köker S et al. Effect of pyridoxine plus pyridostigmine treatment on vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A single-center experience. Neurol Sci. 2021 Sep;42(9):3681-6. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04970-w.

38. Bourque PR et al. Autoimmune peripheral neuropathies. Clin Chim Acta. 2015 Sep 20;449:37-42. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2015.02.039.

39. Paparounas K. Anti-GQ1b ganglioside antibody in peripheral nervous system disorders: Pathophysiologic role and clinical relevance. Arch Neurol. 2004 Jul;61(7):1013-6. doi: 10.1001/archneur.61.7.1013.

40. Dalakas MC. Autoimmune peripheral neuropathies, in Rich RR et al., eds., “Clinical Immunology.” 5th ed, (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019, pp. 903-915.e1). doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7020-6896-6.00067-3

41. Leonhard SE et al. Diagnosis and management of Guillain-Barré syndrome in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15(11):671-83. doi: 10.1038/s41582-019-0250-9.

42. Razali SNO et al. Serial peripheral nerve ultrasound in Guillain–Barré syndrome. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Nov;127(2):1652-6. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.06.030.

43. Gallardo E et al. Spinal nerve involvement in early Guillain-Barré syndrome: A clinico-electrophysiological, ultrasonographic and pathological study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Apr;126(4):810-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.06.051.

44. Islam Z et al. Inhibition of C1q, initiator of the classical complement cascade, by ANX005 for the treatment of Guillain–Barré syndrome: Results from a phase 1b study (763). Neurology. 2020 Apr;94(15 Suppl):763.

45. Hughes R et al.; FORCIDP Trial Investigators. Oral fingolimod for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (FORCIDP Trial): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Aug;17(8):689-98. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30202-3.

46. Lansita JA et al. Nonclinical development of ANX005: A humanized anti-C1q antibody for treatment of autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases. Int J Toxicol. 2017 Nov/Dec;36(6):449-62. doi: 10.1177/1091581817740873.

47. Annexon Inc. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of ANX005 in subjects with Guillain–Barré syndrome. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04701164. Updated Jan 8, 2021. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04701164.

48. Halstead SK et al. Eculizumab prevents anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathy in a murine model. Brain. 2008 May;131(Pt 5):1197-1208. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm316.

49. Misawa S et al. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Jun;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.

50. Alexion Pharmaceuticals. A phase 3, prospective, multicenter, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eculizumab in patients with Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04752566. Updated Feb 18, 2022. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04752566.

51. Tzachanis D et al. Successful treatment of refractory Guillain–Barré syndrome with alemtuzumab in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Acta Haematol. 2014 Aug;132(2):240-3. doi: 10.1159/000358292.

52. Satkowiak K, Smith AG. Guillain-Barré syndrome, in Roos KL, ed. “Emergency Neurology.” (Springer, Cham, 2021, pp. 225-50). Accessed Feb 23, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75778-6_12.

53. Gogia B et al. Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, in “StatPearls [Internet].” (Treasure Island (Fla.): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan). Updated Nov 22, 2021. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK563249.

54. Allen JA et al. Challenges in the diagnosis of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain Behav. 2018 Feb;8(3):e00932. doi: 10.1002/brb3.932.

55. Stino AM et al. Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy-diagnostic pitfalls and treatment approach. Muscle Nerve. 2021 Feb;63(2):157-69. doi: 10.1002/mus.27046.

56. Ginsberg MR et al. Using and interpreting electrodiagnostic tests. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 Nov 2;87(11):671-82. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19154.

57. Capodivento G et al. CSF sphingomyelin: A new biomarker of demyelination in the diagnosis and management of CIDP and GBS. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021;92(3):303-10. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2020-324445.

58. Shimizu S et al. Efficacy and safety of rituximab in refractory CIDP with or without IgG4 autoantibodies (RECIPE): Protocol for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Jan 4;9(4):e17117. doi: 10.2196/17117.

59. Plasma Exchange/Sandoglobulin Guillain-Barré Syndrome Trial Group. Randomised trial of plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and combined treatments in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Lancet. 1997;349(9047):225-30.

60. Zuercher AW et al. Next-generation Fc receptor–targeting biologics for autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev. 2019 Oct;18(10):102366. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2019.102366.

61. Sesarman A et al. The neonatal Fc receptor as therapeutic target in IgG-mediated autoimmune diseases. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2010 Aug;67(15):2533-50. doi: 10.1007/s00018-010-0318-6.

62. Ulrichts P et al. Neonatal Fc receptor antagonist efgartigimod safely and sustainably reduces IgGs in humans. J Clin Invest. 2018 Oct;128(10):4372-86. doi: 10.1172/JCI97911.

63. Peripheral neuropathy [symptoms and causes]. Mayo Clinic [Internet]. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/peripheral-neuropathy/symptoms-causes/syc-20352061.

64. Maharaj SS, Yakasai AM. Does a rehabilitation program of aerobic and progressive resisted exercises influence HIV-induced distal neuropathic pain? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 May;97(5):364-9. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000866.

65. Fields JA et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate induces peripheral neuropathy and alters inflammation and mitochondrial biogenesis in the brains of mice. Sci Rep. 2019 Nov 20;9(1):17158. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53466-x.

66. Han MM et al. Prevention of HIV-1 TAT protein-induced peripheral neuropathy and mitochondrial disruption by the antimuscarinic pirenzepine. Front Neurol. 2021 Jun 15;12:663373. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.663373.

67. Rozzi SJ et al. Human immunodeficiency virus Tat impairs mitochondrial fission in neurons. Cell Death Discov. 2018;4:8. doi: 10.1038/s41420-017-0013-6.

68. Pasnoor M et al. Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy. Neurol Clin. 2013 May;31(2):463-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2013.01.008.

Peripheral neuropathy is becoming an increasing focal point for clinicians when treating patients because of the plethora of causes to which the disorder has been attributed. Characterized by damage to the peripheral nervous system, peripheral neuropathy causes sharp, burning pain; numbness of the extremities that can travel proximally; muscle weakness; and an overall diminished quality of life. Rather than being a self-developing disease, peripheral neuropathy has mostly been identified as a symptom of causative disorders and therapeutic agents – making prevention and treatment extremely important for patients and providers.

DIABETIC PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

The most common cause of peripheral neuropathy is diabetes mellitus. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a symmetrical, length-dependent neuropathy that affects more than 50% of type I and type II diabetes patients.¹ Not only is DPN an initiating factor of foot ulcers and nontraumatic lower-limb amputation, but it also leads to a severely lower quality of life, financial burden, and increased risk of death after major surgical procedures.²

Diagnosis

Nerve-conduction studies are the preferred diagnostic tool for DPN; however, these studies are costly and difficult to conduct in a clinical setting.² Currently, such diagnostic tools as the 10-g monofilament and tuning fork are more commonly utilized to detect loss of protective foot sensation to decrease the risk of foot ulceration.² In addition, other common aspects of diagnosing DPN include assessment of symptoms in the patient’s hands or feet and patient-reported symptoms.

4

Neuropad, a 10-minute test, measures foot plantar-surface sweat production, indicated by a cobalt compound color change on the device. The test is advantageous because it is highly sensitive – 73% more sensitive than DPNCheck – and does not rely on patient response or require operator training.⁵ A study of Neuropad showed that a drier foot and, therefore, increased risk of foot ulceration correlated with greater abnormal readings on the device, which might indicate onset of more severe DPN in the future.⁶

Sudoscan measures sudomotor function in 3 minutes through an electrochemical reaction between stimulated sweat glands and electrodes.² A study performed in China in patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 394) showed that electrical conductance in the feet is associated with increasing risk and severity of symptoms of DPN in asymptomatic patients (r = 0.98 [95% confidence interval, 0.962-0.993]; P < .01) and might serve as a biomarker of DPN.⁷

Although these three techniques present favorable data, each is a nerve conduction study that can access only small-fiber nerves. Additional testing is required for larger-fiber nerves that are also affected by DPN.² Also, some of the studies of these devices have high heterogeneity and a small sample size. Further research utilizing these three methods should include larger sample sizes to appropriately assess any clinically significant patient outcomes.

Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), another potential technique for DPN screening, is a noninvasive ophthalmic device for assessing corneal small-fiber nerves. A study of patients with diabetes or obesity or both (n = 35) showed high reproducibility of corneal-nerve pathology identification using CCM.⁸ A larger-scale study showed that CCM can detect a reduction in corneal-nerve parameters in DPN patients, as well as in patients who have yet to develop DPN – thus demonstrating the technique’s ability to detect both early subclinical and established DPN.⁹ Once CCM is approved as a point-of-care device, it might provide a reliable, sensitive screening method for DPN as an early-intervention tool.
 

Therapeutic options

The three principal types of treatment for DPN are tricyclic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSNRIs). Only three medications are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the treatment of DPN: pregabalin, duloxetine, and the recently approved capsaicin patch. Some opioid analgesics, including extended-release tapentadol, are FDA approved for DPN-associated neuropathic pain; however, evidence of their efficacy is questionable, and they present a risk of addiction.¹⁰ Here, we focus on potential treatments for DPN and DPN-associated neuropathic pain.

Cinacalcet. Several potential treatments have been studied for alleviating DPN symptoms after progression. Cinacalcet is a calcimimetic agent that activates the adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase–endothelial nitric oxide synthase pathway, which mediates DPN development. The drug has shown evidence of improving sensorimotor function and restoring nerve function in human Schwann cells expressed in diabetes-induced mice.¹¹ In these animal models, cinacalcet improved tactile response when interventional mice were compared with a control group (P < .01).¹¹ Further research is necessary to determine similar efficacy in human subjects.

Traditional Chinese medicine. Recent studies have focused on traditional Chinese medicine and practice, such as acupuncture and moxibustion, for DPN.

Moxibustion is the technique of burning moxa floss (a plant also known as mugwort) on different points on the body, which is thought to alleviate disease. In a study performed on rats, moxibustion increased nerve velocity (P < .05) and preserved sciatic-nerve ultrastructure.¹² Research on the use of moxibustion is preliminary. A meta-analysis of available data found that all clinical studies took place in China, and results were therefore subject to high heterogeneity and small sample size.¹³ Previously, a lack of high-quality data prevented moxibustion from being considered a potential treatment.³ The technique has demonstrated potential benefit, but larger-scale and more rigorous studies must be utilized to verify its clinical efficacy.

Quercetin. This common dietary flavonoid is in development. In rat models with induced DPN, treatment produced significant neuroprotective effects, such as rescued mechanical withdrawal threshold, lowered nerve densities (P = .0378), and rescued lowered levels of reactive O₂ species (P < .0001), which contribute to neurotoxicity in many peripheral neuropathies.¹⁴ Another study of the anti-inflammatory effects of quercetin in rat models found significant lowering of inflammatory factors, including proteins encoded by toll-like receptor 4 and MyD88, and protein transcription factor nuclear factor kappa B (P < .001), which can be beneficial in the treatment of DPN.¹⁵ Future testing in human subjects might reveal similarly positive effects.

Vitamin B. A systematic review examined the therapeutic effects of vitamin B supplementation on DPN. Through a meta-analysis on 14 studies (N = 997), it was revealed that statistically significant improvements in pain and electrophysiological sensory outcomes were observed after vitamin B supplementation. However, the majority of the studies included in the analysis utilized combination therapies with different vitamins (such as vitamin D) and other vitamin B types. Furthermore, deficiencies in B vitamins – especially folic acid and vitamin B₁₂ – have been observed in diabetic patients, and may be the potential cause of DPN in them. The validity of the studies and their findings are weakened by this observation. Therefore, the clinical efficacy of individual B vitamin supplements must be evaluated in long-term, larger scale future studies that exclude those with B vitamin deficiency and DPN to minimize potential error.⁷¹

CHEMOTHERAPY-INDUCED PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

Another cause of peripheral neuropathy has been directly linked to particular chemotherapeutic agents. Platinum-based agents have been widely accepted as an ideal solution for slowing tumor progression; however, it has been established that platinum adducts within DNA are the cause of neuronal degeneration – specifically in dorsal-root ganglion neurons of the peripheral nervous system. In a 2010 meta-analysis in the United States, the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) was observed to range from 65% to 75%, depending on the platinum-based agent.¹⁶ This problem is often dose-limiting and can lead to cessation of treatment, causing patients physical and financial harm. CIPN can be acute or chronic, and symptoms affect motor, sensory, and autonomic function, which can lead to reduced quality of life.¹⁷

Diagnostic tools and strategies

A variety of avenues can be taken to assess whether a patient has CIPN. Because peripheral neuropathy is often subjective, it has been recommended that clinicians use patient-reported outcome measures in this setting, in the form of a questionnaire.

Common toxicity criteria. The most conventional measure of CIPN is the National Cancer Institute’s Common Toxicity Criteria, which grades severity of adverse effects on a scale of 1 to 5 and has been found to be statistically valid.¹⁸ This questionnaire assesses a patient’s neuropathic pain score and sensory deficits, and can detect other potential adverse findings, such as neutropenia.

Total neuropathy score. This commonly used questionnaire measures subjective autonomic, sensory, and motor symptoms on a scale of 0 to 4 for each item, with the individual item scores then summed. A score > 5 indicates CIPN.¹⁹ The tested validity of this measure shows that it has an inter-rater reliability of 0.966 and an intra-rater reliability of 0.986.¹⁹

Other questionnaires. The Neuropathy Screening Questionnaire, Treatment-Induced Neuropathy Assessment Scale, and Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Assessment Tool have been identified as means of understanding what a patient experiences following neurotoxic chemotherapy.¹⁸

Pain caused by CIPN can also be assessed with one of several general scales, such as the Neuropathic Pain Scale for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy (NPS-CIN), which identifies a patient’s level of pain on a scale from 0 to 4 on six items: intensity, unpleasantness, sharpness, depth, numbness, and tingling. This scale has been found to be reliable.¹⁸

Other scales that can be used are the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: Pain Quality Neuro, and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs.¹⁸

Other diagnostic tests. Tests to determine a chemotherapy patient’s functional ability regarding their extremities include postural stability tests, the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, the Fullerton Advance Balance (FAB) Scale, the 6-minute walk test, and the grooved pegboard test.

Nerve conduction studies have been identified as useful tools to assess the physiologic function of fibers, but are costly and used most often in research settings.¹⁸ Quantitative sensory testing and the Bumps test are used to assess threshold capacities for varying sensations. Nerve-imaging tools, such as high-resolution ultrasonography, magnetic resonance neurography, and positron emission and computed tomography, have been found to be successful in identifying nerve damage.¹⁸

Additionally, the accumulation of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the blood has been identified as a potential biomarker for CIPN following animal trials on rats.⁶⁹ Researchers conducted a double-blind trial where healthy rats were given doses of paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, and bortezomib and compared to vehicle-treated rats. Researchers found that there was a correlation between the onset of CIPN and levels of mtDNA, with 1-2-fold increases of mtDNA found in paclitaxel and oxaliplatin treated patients (P < 0.01).⁶⁹ Dysfunctional mitochondria can cause an increase in the activity of reactive oxygen species which results in damage to mtDNA; and abnormal bioenergetics, which may lead to irregular ATP production and result in cellular damage.

Navitoclax. The antineoplastic agent cisplatin is used to treat a variety of cancers, including ovarian, lung, head and neck, testicular, and bladder.²⁰ Using single-cell RNA sequencing of dorsal-root ganglion cells in mouse models that have been given human equivalent doses of cisplatin to induce peripheral neuropathy, a study identified that the drug was upregulating the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A gene (CDKN1A) and leading to overproduction of its product, the p21 protein.²¹ This is due to a cellular response to DNA damage that causes the dorsal-root ganglion sensory neuron to change into a senescence-like state to survive. Subsequently, accumulation of senescent sensory neurons correlates with induction of neuropathic pain and peripheral neuropathy. It has been established, in mouse models, that removing senescent cells has the potential to reduce or reverse peripheral neuropathy associated with cisplatin treatment.²¹

A study induced irreversible CIPN using cisplatin on mice that were subsequently treated with antineoplastic agent navitoclax (n = 5) or vehicle (n = 10). Using navitoclax, a broad-spectrum senolytic agent, the study examined the dorsal-root ganglia of the mice and found that CIPN was reversed following clearance of senescent cells, with baseline mechanical thresholds able to be reestablished without difference, compared with the control group (P = .7734).²² The investigators found that clearance of senescent cells using navitoclax proved a promising avenue toward mitigating CIPN. More studies should be completed to validate this treatment as an effective preventive.

NGF Monoclonal Antibody (Tanezumab). Tanezumab has been identified as a potential analgesic for CIPN having observed success during animal trials. This monoclonal antibody targets the NGF-TrkA pathway in a dose-dependent manner which results in a reduction of neuronal sensitivity and subsequently neuropathic pain (P < 0.05).⁷⁰ NGF is a peripheral pain mediator that has functional properties relating to inflammation and neuropathy. Therefore, by targeting this protein and inhibiting its activation, patients could potentially see a dramatic improvement in their quality of life following a CIPN diagnosis. This potential analgesic was observed to be successful for a variety of chemotherapeutic agents including cisplatin, vincristine, and paclitaxel.⁷⁰

SASP inhibitors. A second possible approach to neutralizing senescent cells would be by inhibiting the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP). This could be accomplished through the use of nuclear factor kappa B inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, bromodomain and extra-terminal (BET) inhibitors, and inhibitors of secretory factors, such as interleukin (IL)-6 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha.²³ Rapamycin, an mTOR inhibitor that is already used in clinical settings, has been found to reduce the inflammatory effects of senescent cells, expanding the lifespan of mice.²⁴ JQ1, OTX015, and ARV825 are BET inhibitors that have been found to block bromodomain-containing protein 4, thus inducing senescent cell death.²⁵ IL-6 inhibitors (for example, tocilizumab) and TNF alpha inhibitors (for example, adalimumab) are already used clinically and can mitigate the effects of SASP.^23,26 However, further studies are needed to examine potential adverse effects of this type of therapy.

Mitigation of oxaliplatin adverse effects. This platinum-based chemotherapeutic agent associated with peripheral neuropathy is primarily used to treat colorectal cancer and digestive-tract malignancies.²⁷ Oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN) can be acute or chronic, and causes neuropathic pain, autonomic nerve dysfunction, and hypersensitivity to cold, which lead to abnormal nervous system effects, such as peripheral paresthesia.

These symptoms derive from oxaliplatin’s effects on a variety of cellular mechanisms, and differ in chronic and acute OIPN. Acute OIPN includes abnormal changes to sodium, potassium, calcium, and transient receptor potential channels, which lead to dysregulation and dysfunction in peripheral neurons; glia activation associated with dysregulation of pain modulation, by reducing thresholds; and upregulation of the octamer-binding transcription factor (OCT) protein.

Chronic OIPN has been associated with damage to nuclear DNA by platinum adducts, mitochondrial dysfunction (due to oxidative stress), and neuroinflammation caused by glia activation and gut microbiota.²⁸

With increased understanding regarding cellular mechanisms affected in OIPN, treatment options are being established to prevent or reduce its effects. A treatment being tested for the treatment of OIPN is the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSNRI) antidepressant duloxetine.²⁹ In a clinical trial of 40 patients with gastrointestinal cancer, duloxetine was found to reduce cold sensitivity (P = .001), tingling or discomfort of hands (P < .002) and feet (P = .017), and peripheral neuropathic pain (P = .001), and was found to prevent paresthesia (P = .025).²⁹ The SNRI antidepressant venlafaxine has also shown that it can alleviate neuropathic pain and motor neuropathy in clinical trials.³⁰

Antioxidant agents, such as amifostine and calmangafodipir, have also been identified as possible preventive measures against OIPN. Amifostine prevents neuronal hyperactivation and nitrosative stress, while calmangafodipir modulates reactive O₂ species, regulates ion channels, and protects axons and the myelin sheath.^31,32

Treatments such as riluzole, lidocaine, and pregabalin have all shown promise in reducing the effects of OIPN by their action on potassium, sodium, and calcium channels, respectively.²⁸ A study conducted on mice (n = 565) with OIPN found that riluzole effectively mitigated motor and sensory deficits associated with the use of oxaliplatin.³³

TREK-1 and TRAAK, potassium channels that are important for thermal and motor sensitivity, and that act as silencing mechanisms to excitatory stimuli, were shown to degenerate following oxaliplatin treatment, leading to hypersensitivity. Riluzole performs its therapeutic function by activating TREK-1 and TRAAK channels and blocking excessive accumulation of glutamate. Following riluzole treatment, mice were observed to show a significant reduction in sensorimotor deficits. Interestingly, riluzole also aided in reducing depression associated with oxaliplatin (P < .01).³³ However, more studies are necessary to ensure the safety and efficacy of riluzole in humans.

Pyridoxine, pyridostigmine for vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy. Vinca alkaloids have also been identified as chemotherapeutic agents that induce peripheral neuropathy. One such agent, vincristine, which is used primarily to treat leukemia and brain cancer, has been observed to cause peripheral neuropathy, including motor, autonomic, and sensory symptoms, such as abnormal gait, mechanical allodynia, paresthesia, ptosis, and obstipation, and altered perception of stimuli.^34,35 These symptoms are caused primarily by the ability of vincristine to activate neuroinflammatory mechanisms in dorsal-root ganglia. This is caused by activation of nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain 3 (NLRP3)-dependent release of IL-1b and subsequent cleavage of gasdermin D and caspase-1 in macrophages (observed in mouse models). Vincristine activates the NLRP3 signaling cascade that results in production of proinflammatory cytokines, thus inducing symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.³⁶

Pyridoxine and pyridostigmine have been introduced as potential treatments for vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy. Following a clinical trial of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients, a study of 23 patients with vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy found statistical validity for using pyridoxine and pyridostigmine because the drugs improved the neuropathy score (P < .001).³⁷ However, more research is needed before implementing their use in point-of-care settings.
 

AUTOIMMUNE PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

Autoimmune peripheral neuropathies (APNs) occur when the immune system targets peripheral nervous system and its various cells. Although there is a wide range of conditions in this category of peripheral neuropathy, the two most common types – Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) – have been targeted for clinical research.

Guillain-Barré syndrome: Diagnostic tools and strategies

Guillain-Barré syndrome encompasses a variety of acute inflammatory polyneuropathies, including axonal motor, sensory, and autonomic neuropathies and Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS).³⁸ In particular, the anti-GQ1b ganglioside antibody is considered archetypical in APNs because it is detected in MFS patients and not found in normal and disease-control samples, which makes it a good clinical marker.³⁹

It is difficult to distinguish GBS from CIDP because the time frame of onset of maximum deficit of neuropathy – 4 weeks – can overlap with subacute CIDP symptoms.40 Current diagnosis is based on elevated levels of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins, which can increase fourfold 6 weeks into the early phase of disease, and nerve conduction studies.⁴⁰ However, electrodiagnostic readings and CSF protein levels are normal in 30% to 50% of patients in the first week after onset of disease and must be repeated in weeks that follow.⁴¹ A major disadvantage in the workup of suspected GBS is that the syndrome can be confirmed only several weeks after onset of symptoms.

Ultrasonography. A potential new diagnostic tool is serial peripheral nerve ultrasonographic (US) imaging. A pilot study of GBS patients (n = 16) showed that US can detect enlarged nerve cross-sections in median, ulnar, and sural nerves in the first 3 weeks of disease. Imaging performance was consistent with that of nerve conduction studies, and was advantageous because US is easier to perform and for patients to undergo.⁴²

Spinal inflammation. Another study hints at the importance of spinal-root inflammation as an early indicator of disease, especially when nerve conduction study readings are normal.⁴³ Further research is needed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of this diagnostic method in larger population groups.
 

Guillain-Barré syndrome: Therapeutic options

The standard of care for GBS in the United States is intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy and plasmapheresis, but there is no FDA-approved treatment.⁴⁴ Although the two treatments have been shown to be equally effective in early stages of disease, early relapses can occur with both. One study found that 20% of patients who underwent plasmapheresis relapsed.⁴⁰ Because nearly 50% of GBS patients do not respond to IVIG or plasmapheresis, the need is urgent for new therapies to decrease the risk of permanent disability.⁴⁵

Antibody therapy. Recent developments include the use of monoclonal antibodies against GBS. ANX005 is an immunoglobulin G4 recombinant antibody that inhibits complement component 1q (C1q). Activation of this protein triggers the classical complement cascade, a natural part of the innate immune system that is nonetheless inappropriately activated in some autoimmune diseases, leading to neurodegeneration as a consequence of tissue damage.

ANX005 was found to have high-binding affinity to C1q in human, rat, cynomolgus monkey, and dog sera in nonclinical trials, and demonstrated low cross-reactivity despite being a plasma protein present throughout human tissue. Furthermore, studies show that ANX005 can deplete C1q completely in the CSF of monkeys.⁴⁶ Phase 1b clinical trials in Bangladesh with GBS patients (n = 23) 18 to 58 years of age against a placebo group (n = 8) indicate that treatment is well tolerated. Drug-related serious adverse events were lacking and subjects’ GBS-Disability Score improved compared with placebo controls at week 1 (r² = 0.48; P < .0001) and week 8, when an improvement of three or more in the score was observed.⁴⁰

ANX005 is entering phase 2 trials, which are expected to be completed in 2023.⁴⁷

Eculizumab. This promising treatment is a monoclonal antibody against C5 convertase, an enzyme that catalyzes formation of C5b-9, a membrane attack complex in nerve membranes. Studies in mouse models showed that treatment could significantly improve symptoms of terminal motor neuropathy and completely block formation of membrane attack complexes.⁴⁸ Rats in this study were paralyzed by anti-GQ1b antibodies to emulate GBS pathogenesis.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial in Japan enrolled 34 patients (23 assigned to receive eculizumab; 11, to placebo); all were 18 years old or older and could not walk independently (3-5 on the GBS functional grading scale). Results showed that:

• Sixteen percent more patients receiving eculizumab treatment (n = 14; 42-78 years) than in the placebo group (n = 5; 20-73 years) could walk independently after 4 weeks.
• Fifty-six percent more patients in the functional group (n = 17; 52-90 years) than in the placebo group (n = 2; 20-52 years) could run after 6 months.49 While it is noted that the first portion of the trial failed to meet the predefined significance level, its long-term effects are observed to have therapeutic potential.

Eculizumab is in phase 3 clinical trials with primary data to be released in October 2022.⁵⁰

Alemtuzumab, which inhibits the CD52 gene, was found to alleviate symptoms and restore strength in a rapidly deteriorating patient with MFS and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. By week 4 of treatment, anti-GQ1B antibodies were eliminated. However, the cause of this patient’s MFS is unclear; recovery might have been the result of multiple factors.⁵¹

IgG inhibition. Additional ongoing studies include therapies geared toward the neonatal Fc receptor as a potential clinical target for IgG inhibition.⁵²

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP): Diagnostic tools and strategies

CIDP is the most common chronic APN and shares many similarities with GBS but differs in its responsiveness to corticosteroids, prognosis, and more. Lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria for CIDP has led to reliance on nerve conduction studies and clinical findings for making the diagnosis.⁵³

Guidelines. European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society guidelines have high sensitivity (81%) and specificity (96%) and are utilized as diagnostic criteria for CIDP; however, a survey found that these criteria may be underutilized in clinical practice – which might contribute to a high misdiagnosis rate.⁵⁴ Furthermore, although current diagnostic methods are dependent on CSF proteins, this disease is lacking a diagnostic biomarker, leading to easy overdiagnosis and unnecessary immunotherapy.⁵⁵

Electrodiagnostic testing, which is often used, is limited because it cannot evaluate small-fiber nerves, cannot access the CNS adequately, and does not provide a specific diagnosis.⁵⁶

Sphingomyelin in CSF. Recently, a study in Italy explored the potential of CSF sphingomyelin as a biomarker for CIDP and for GBS. Findings reveal that sphingomyelin levels can be used to diagnose more than 80% of APN cases in the clinical setting. Different levels were identified in GBS, acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, and typical and atypical CIDP patients. Additionally, sphingomyelin showed potential to diagnose the correct stage of disease. An increase in sphingomyelin in relapsing CIDP patients was noted, compared with what was seen in controls and stable CIDP patients.⁵⁷ Larger-scale studies are needed to further test the efficacy of this method.
 

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: Therapeutic options

First-line therapy for CIDP comprises prednisone, 60-100 mg/d, plasmapheresis, and IVIG, all of which have proved effective. Some patients respond better to one treatment than to others40; some have subpar response to all these treatments and are categorized as having refractory CIDP.⁴⁵

Although there are no newly approved treatments for CIDP, several show promise in ongoing clinical trials.

Rituximab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody being studied in two phase 2 clinical trials of efficacy for refractory CIDP with IgG4 autoantibodies, after showing potential efficacy.^58,59

Efgartigimod is an Fc fragment that blocks the neonatal Fc receptor, prevents lysosome degradation of IgGs, and thus allows them to be “recycled.”⁶⁰ These autoantibodies are crucial in disease pathology because lowering their concentration provides effective therapy.⁶¹ Phase 1 trials showed that repeated doses of efgartigimod reduced IgG levels in healthy volunteers by 50%. Repeated dosing lowered IgG levels, on average by 75% in serum, which was an effect that was sustained for an 8-week period.⁶² Phase 2 trials are recruiting, with a projected primary completion in 2023.
 

INFECTION-INDUCED PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY

Infections have been identified as a primary cause of peripheral neuropathy. Infection-induced peripheral neuropathy has been associated with Lyme disease, Epstein-Barr and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, shingles, hepatitis B and C, diphtheria, leprosy, and rabies.⁶³ Extensive research on peripheral neuropathy has not been completed for most of the diseases, highlighting an unmet need for patients who experience this sequela of infection.

HIV is a well-documented viral cause of peripheral neuropathy. The most common symptom is distal sensory polyneuropathy, which affects more than 50% of patients with HIV.⁶⁴ The incidence of distal sensory polyneuropathy in HIV has been correlated with the use of antiretroviral therapy – specifically, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate – and with certain proteins secreted by the virus.⁶⁵ Symptoms include loss of sensory properties, neuropathic pain, and allodynia.⁶⁶

Diagnostic tools and strategies

Nerve conduction studies have primarily been used to diagnose HIV-induced peripheral neuropathy, as well as electrophysiological testing and noninvasive CCM. These assays can detect changes or abnormalities in large- and small-fiber nerves in HIV infection patients.⁶⁶

Therapeutic options

Studies in mouse models have illustrated how the Tat protein correlates with induction of motor and sensory distal symmetric polyneuropathy. Expression of Tat can lead to mitochondrial disruption, resulting in degeneration of sensory dorsal root ganglia and subsequent neuropathic pain.⁶⁷

Pirenzepine. Studies on mice have identified a potential treatment for HIV infection-induced peripheral neuropathy with pirenzepine, targeting the muscarinic subtype-1 receptor. Pirenzepine activates a molecular pathway that promotes neurite growth and mitochondrial function. Researchers found that, following treatment with pirenzepine (n = 6), there was marked reduction in mitochondrial degeneration and HIV-induced distal sensory neuropathy.⁶⁶ This outcome was due to the ability of pirenzepine to block the effects of Tat protein expression, leading to reversal of its neurodegenerative effects.

Exercise combined with analgesics has also been identified as a potential treatment for alleviating distal sensory polyneuropathy in HIV infection–induced peripheral neuropathy. In a 12-week study, researchers instructed subjects who were receiving a combination of HIV treatments, including tenofovir, lamivudine, and efavirenz, to perform aerobic and resistance exercises. This regimen was intended to improve peripheral nerve-conduction velocity and increase the density of nerve fibers and neurogenic branching.

The study identified baseline pain scores and divided participants into three groups: aerobic exercise (n = 45), resistance exercise (n = 44), and controls (n = 47), for whom the average level of pain was 2 on an ascending scale of 1 to 10. There was significant reduction in pain score in the experimental groups by the end of the study, as well as an increased sensory profile.⁶⁴ This study has elucidated a pain management therapy for HIV-induced peripheral neuropathy that can prove beneficial for patients.
 

CRYPTOGENIC SENSORY POLYNEUROPATHY

Also known as idiopathic neuropathy or small-fiber sensory peripheral neuropathy, cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) affects one-third of patients with peripheral neuropathy, in whom (despite extensive testing) no known cause of their condition is revealed.

Diagnostic tools and strategies

Applicable clinical and laboratory tests of any potential known underlying causes of neuropathy, including diabetes, hereditary disorders, and autoimmune disease, must be performed to rule out those causes and suggest an idiopathic cause.⁶⁸

Therapeutic options

There are no FDA-approved treatments for CSPN, as most treatments are geared toward neuropathic pain management, rehabilitation, and supportive care.⁶⁸ Due to a lack of research and data regarding these types of peripheral neuropathies, various studies suggest different first-line therapies. For example, anticonvulsants (pregabalin, gabapentin), antidepressants (duloxetine), and opioid-like compounds (tramadol) are all threapy options to treat DPN.³

Adequate data are lacking to support the efficacy of immunosuppressive therapy in CSPN.

Summing up

The combination of an understanding of a widening range of underlying diseases, advancements in cancer therapies, and the rising prevalence of diabetes have all led to an increasing incidence of peripheral neuropathy. Coupled with the fact that one-third of patients with peripheral neuropathy experience idiopathic neuropathy, this indicates that extensive studies must be undertaken to identify mitigation and prevention strategies for peripheral neuropathy. To summarize the landscape of treatment for peripheral neuropathy:

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Treatment for DPN comprises three FDA-approved products: pregabalin, duloxetine, and a higher (8%)-strength capsaicin patch.³ Pain-management therapies also exist to reduce diabetes-induced neuropathic pain, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and extended-release tapentadol.¹⁰

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy has yet to be effectively treated in humans; however, many trials are being completed in animals with promising results. Treatment for CIPN has been identified using senolytic agents, such as navitoclax,²² and through inhibition of SASP by a variety of agents, including ARV825, tocilizumab, and adalimumab.^23-26

Oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy. Research has identified a potential preventive agent in duloxetine, with human trials already showing efficacy and safety.²⁹ Animal models have shown progress studying antioxidant agents, such as amifostine³¹ and calmangafodipir,³² which target ion channels. In a similar mechanism of action, riluzole has been observed to reduce motor and sensory deficits and depression resulting from treatment with oxaliplatin.

Vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy. Progress has been seen in treating vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy with pyridoxine and pyridostigmine, which have improved neuropathy scores in trial subjects;³⁷ more studies must be completed before these agents can be established as effective therapy.

Autoimmune PN. There are no FDA-approved drugs to mitigate the peripheral neuropathy induced by GBS and CIDP; however, studies are being conducted to resolve this impediment. Potential treatments, such as ANX005, a recombinant antibody, and eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody, have both shown efficacy in human trials and provide a potential path toward treatment against peripheral neuropathy caused by GBS.^47,50 CIDP is currently treated using prednisone, plasmapheresis, and IVIG.⁴⁰ Clinical trials are studying the efficacy of rituximab and efgartigimod for CIDP.^58-60

Infection-induced peripheral neuropathy. Although many infections can induce peripheral neuropathy, HIV is most well documented and therefore was singled out for discussion in this article. Pirenzepine has been shown to promote neurite growth and reduce mitochondrial degeneration – both of which factors are associated with reduction of neuropathic pain.⁶⁶ Exercise and analgesics have also been found to mitigate the effects of HIV-induced distal sensory neuropathy, with pain scores being reduced.⁶¹

Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy. Research has yet to identify a causative agent of, or subsequent potential therapy for, CSPN. Increased knowledge about this neuropathy will, it is hoped, bring patients closer to a cure – beyond current pain mitigation strategies with anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and opioid-like compounds.³
 

Ms. Lee is a first-year master of science candidate in applied life sciences, with an emphasis on infectious diseases, and Mr. Kosacki is a first-year master of science candidate in applied life sciences, with an emphasis on translational research, both at Keck Graduate Institute Henry E. Riggs School of Applied Life Sciences, Claremont, Calif. Dr. Bhandari is professor of clinical sciences and Dr. Tran is professor of clinical sciences, Keck Graduate Institute School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.

References

1. Barrell K, Smith AG. Peripheral neuropathy. Med Clin North Am. 2019 Mar;103(2):383-97. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2018.10.006.

2. Selvarajah D et al. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy: Advances in diagnosis and strategies for screening and early intervention. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Dec;7(12):938-48. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30081-6.

3. Snyder MJ et al. Treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: An update. Am Fam Physician. 2016 Aug;94(3):227-334.

4. Sharma S et al. Assessment of diabetic neuropathy using a point-of-care nerve conduction device shows significant associations with the LDIFLARE method and clinical neuropathy scoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 Jan;9(1):123-31. doi: 10.1177/1932296814551044.

5. Zografou I et al. Validation of Neuropad in the assessment of peripheral diabetic neuropathy in patients with diabetes mellitus versus the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, 10g monofilament application and biothesiometer measurement. Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2020;18(5):517-22. doi: 10.2174/1570161117666190723155324.

6. Tentolouris N et al. Moisture status of the skin of the feet assessed by the visual test Neuropad correlates with foot ulceration in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(5):1112-4. doi: 10.2337/dc09-2027.

7. Mao F et al. Sudoscan is an effective screening method for asymptomatic diabetic neuropathy in Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. J Diabetes Investig. 2017 May;8(3):363-8. doi: 10.1111/jdi.12575.

8. Kalteniece A et al. Corneal confocal microscopy is a rapid reproducible ophthalmic technique for quantifying corneal nerve abnormalities. PLoS One. 2017 Aug;12(8):e0183040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183040.

9. Gad H et al. Corneal confocal microscopy for the diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Diabetes Investig. 2022 Jan;13(1):134-47. doi: 10.1111/jdi.13643.

10. Pop-Busui R et al. Diabetic neuropathy: A position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(1):136-54. doi: 10.2337/dc16-2042.

11. Chung YC et al. Calcimimetic restores diabetic peripheral neuropathy by ameliorating apoptosis and improving autophagy. Cell Death Dis. 2018 Nov;9(12):1163. doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-1192-7.

12. Li J et al. Therapeutic effects of moxibustion simultaneously targeting Nrf2 and NF-kB in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2019 Dec;189(4):1167-82. doi: 10.1007/s12010-019-03052-8.

13. Tan Y et al. Moxibustion for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Sep 26;99(39):e22286. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022286.

14. Xie J et al. Protective effect of quercetin on streptozotocin-induced diabetic peripheral neuropathy rats through modulating gut microbiota and reactive oxygen species level. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020 Jul;127:110147. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110147.

15. Zhao B et al. Quercetin reduces inflammation in a rat model of diabetic peripheral neuropathy by regulating the TLR4/MyD88/NF-kappa B signalling pathway. Eur J Pharmacol. 2021 Dec;912:174607. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.174607.

16. McWhinney SR et al. Platinum neurotoxicity pharmacogenetics. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8(1):10-6. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-0840.

17. Addington J, Freimer M. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: An update on the current understanding. F1000Res. 2016 Jun 22;5:F1000 Faculty Rev-1466. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8053.1.

18. Lustberg M, Loprinzi C, eds. “Diagnosis, Management and Emerging Strategies for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy: A MASCC Book.” Springer International Publishing; 2021.

19. Cornblath DR et al. Total neuropathy score: Validation and reliability study. Neurology. 1999 Nov;53(8):1660-4. doi: 10.1212/wnl.53.8.1660.

20. Aldossary SA. Review on pharmacology of cisplatin: Clinical use, toxicity and mechanism of resistance of cisplatin. Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal. 2019;12(1):7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bpj/1608.

21. Calls A et al. Cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy is associated with neuronal senescence-like response. Neuro Oncol. 2021 Jan;23(1):88-99. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa151.

22. Acklin S et al. Depletion of senescent-like neuronal cells alleviates cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in mice. Sci Rep. 2020 Aug;10(1):14170. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71042-6.

23. Watanabe S et al. Impact of senescence‐associated secretory phenotype and its potential as a therapeutic target for senescence‐associated diseases. Cancer Sci. 2017 Apr;108(4):563-9. doi: 10.1111/cas.13184.

24. Harrison DE et al. Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice. Nature. 2009 Jul 16;460(7253):392-5. doi: 10.1038/nature08221.

25. Wakita M et al. A BET family protein degrader provokes senolysis by targeting NHEJ and autophagy in senescent cells. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):1935. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15719-6.

26. Prattichizzo F et al. Anti-TNF-alpha treatment modulates SASP and SASP-related microRNAs in endothelial cells and in circulating angiogenic cells. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):11945-58. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7858.

27. Kang L et al. Oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy: Clinical features, mechanisms, prevention and treatment. J Neurol. 2021 Sep;268(9):3269-82. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-09942-w.

28. Yang Y et al. Targeting strategies for oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy: Clinical syndrome, molecular basis, and drug development. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Oct 22;40(1):331. doi: 10.1186/s13046-021-02141-z.

29. Rokhsareh S et al. Evaluating the effects of duloxetine on prophylaxis of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: A randomized double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2021 Nov 5;10781552211052646. doi: 10.1177/10781552211052646.

30. Farshchian N et al. Comparative study of the effects of venlafaxine and duloxetine on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2018 Nov;82(5):787-93. doi: 10.1007/s00280-018-3664-y.

31. Pereira AF et al. Amifostine protects from the peripheral sensory neuropathy induced by oxaliplatin in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2020 Sep 18;53(11):e10263. doi: 10.1590/1414-431X202010263.

32. Glimelius B et al. Persistent prevention of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy using calmangafodipir (PledOx®): A placebo-controlled randomised phase II study (PLIANT). Acta Oncol. 2018 Mar;57(3):393-402. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1398836.

33. Poupon L et al. Targeting the TREK-1 potassium channel via riluzole to eliminate the neuropathic and depressive-like effects of oxaliplatin. Neuropharmacology. 2018 Sep 15;140:43-61. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.07.026.

34. Mora J et al. Next generation ligand binding assays – Review of emerging technologies’ capabilities to enhance throughput and multiplexing. AAPS J. 2014 Nov;16(6):1175-84. doi: 10.1208/s12248-014-9660-1.

35. Starobova H, Vetter I. Pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Front Mol Neurosci. 2017 May 31;10:174. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00174.

36. Starobova H et al. Vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy is driven by canonical NLRP3 activation and IL-1-beta release. J Exp Med. 2021;218(5):e20201452. doi: 10.1084/jem.20201452.

37. Aydin Köker S et al. Effect of pyridoxine plus pyridostigmine treatment on vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A single-center experience. Neurol Sci. 2021 Sep;42(9):3681-6. doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04970-w.

38. Bourque PR et al. Autoimmune peripheral neuropathies. Clin Chim Acta. 2015 Sep 20;449:37-42. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2015.02.039.

39. Paparounas K. Anti-GQ1b ganglioside antibody in peripheral nervous system disorders: Pathophysiologic role and clinical relevance. Arch Neurol. 2004 Jul;61(7):1013-6. doi: 10.1001/archneur.61.7.1013.

40. Dalakas MC. Autoimmune peripheral neuropathies, in Rich RR et al., eds., “Clinical Immunology.” 5th ed, (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019, pp. 903-915.e1). doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7020-6896-6.00067-3

41. Leonhard SE et al. Diagnosis and management of Guillain-Barré syndrome in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15(11):671-83. doi: 10.1038/s41582-019-0250-9.

42. Razali SNO et al. Serial peripheral nerve ultrasound in Guillain–Barré syndrome. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Nov;127(2):1652-6. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.06.030.

43. Gallardo E et al. Spinal nerve involvement in early Guillain-Barré syndrome: A clinico-electrophysiological, ultrasonographic and pathological study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Apr;126(4):810-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.06.051.

44. Islam Z et al. Inhibition of C1q, initiator of the classical complement cascade, by ANX005 for the treatment of Guillain–Barré syndrome: Results from a phase 1b study (763). Neurology. 2020 Apr;94(15 Suppl):763.

45. Hughes R et al.; FORCIDP Trial Investigators. Oral fingolimod for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (FORCIDP Trial): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Aug;17(8):689-98. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30202-3.

46. Lansita JA et al. Nonclinical development of ANX005: A humanized anti-C1q antibody for treatment of autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases. Int J Toxicol. 2017 Nov/Dec;36(6):449-62. doi: 10.1177/1091581817740873.

47. Annexon Inc. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of ANX005 in subjects with Guillain–Barré syndrome. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04701164. Updated Jan 8, 2021. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04701164.

48. Halstead SK et al. Eculizumab prevents anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathy in a murine model. Brain. 2008 May;131(Pt 5):1197-1208. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm316.

49. Misawa S et al. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Jun;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.

50. Alexion Pharmaceuticals. A phase 3, prospective, multicenter, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eculizumab in patients with Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04752566. Updated Feb 18, 2022. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04752566.

51. Tzachanis D et al. Successful treatment of refractory Guillain–Barré syndrome with alemtuzumab in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Acta Haematol. 2014 Aug;132(2):240-3. doi: 10.1159/000358292.

52. Satkowiak K, Smith AG. Guillain-Barré syndrome, in Roos KL, ed. “Emergency Neurology.” (Springer, Cham, 2021, pp. 225-50). Accessed Feb 23, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75778-6_12.

53. Gogia B et al. Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, in “StatPearls [Internet].” (Treasure Island (Fla.): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan). Updated Nov 22, 2021. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK563249.

54. Allen JA et al. Challenges in the diagnosis of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain Behav. 2018 Feb;8(3):e00932. doi: 10.1002/brb3.932.

55. Stino AM et al. Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy-diagnostic pitfalls and treatment approach. Muscle Nerve. 2021 Feb;63(2):157-69. doi: 10.1002/mus.27046.

56. Ginsberg MR et al. Using and interpreting electrodiagnostic tests. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 Nov 2;87(11):671-82. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19154.

57. Capodivento G et al. CSF sphingomyelin: A new biomarker of demyelination in the diagnosis and management of CIDP and GBS. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021;92(3):303-10. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2020-324445.

58. Shimizu S et al. Efficacy and safety of rituximab in refractory CIDP with or without IgG4 autoantibodies (RECIPE): Protocol for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Jan 4;9(4):e17117. doi: 10.2196/17117.

59. Plasma Exchange/Sandoglobulin Guillain-Barré Syndrome Trial Group. Randomised trial of plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and combined treatments in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Lancet. 1997;349(9047):225-30.

60. Zuercher AW et al. Next-generation Fc receptor–targeting biologics for autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev. 2019 Oct;18(10):102366. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2019.102366.

61. Sesarman A et al. The neonatal Fc receptor as therapeutic target in IgG-mediated autoimmune diseases. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2010 Aug;67(15):2533-50. doi: 10.1007/s00018-010-0318-6.

62. Ulrichts P et al. Neonatal Fc receptor antagonist efgartigimod safely and sustainably reduces IgGs in humans. J Clin Invest. 2018 Oct;128(10):4372-86. doi: 10.1172/JCI97911.

63. Peripheral neuropathy [symptoms and causes]. Mayo Clinic [Internet]. Accessed Feb 23, 2022. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/peripheral-neuropathy/symptoms-causes/syc-20352061.

64. Maharaj SS, Yakasai AM. Does a rehabilitation program of aerobic and progressive resisted exercises influence HIV-induced distal neuropathic pain? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 May;97(5):364-9. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000866.

65. Fields JA et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate induces peripheral neuropathy and alters inflammation and mitochondrial biogenesis in the brains of mice. Sci Rep. 2019 Nov 20;9(1):17158. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53466-x.

66. Han MM et al. Prevention of HIV-1 TAT protein-induced peripheral neuropathy and mitochondrial disruption by the antimuscarinic pirenzepine. Front Neurol. 2021 Jun 15;12:663373. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.663373.

67. Rozzi SJ et al. Human immunodeficiency virus Tat impairs mitochondrial fission in neurons. Cell Death Discov. 2018;4:8. doi: 10.1038/s41420-017-0013-6.

68. Pasnoor M et al. Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy. Neurol Clin. 2013 May;31(2):463-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2013.01.008.

PARIS – “I thought I was as exhausted, and isolated, and neglected as I could get, and then he came home.”

Those were the words of Kate Washington, PhD, from Sacramento as she gave a moving account of the immense burden she felt as caregiver to her husband with cancer.

She was taking part in the session, “I am FINE: Frustrated * Isolated * Neglected * Emotional,” at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. In that session, speakers assessed the toll of cancer on patients, caregivers, nurses, and doctors.

Dr. Washington, author of “Already Toast: Caregiving and Burnout in America” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2021), explained that she cared for her husband and young family while he was “suffering through two different kinds of lymphoma and really devastating stem cell transplants.”

When her husband was first diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma in 2015, he was placed on a watch-and-wait protocol. At that point, he seemed fine, Dr. Washington said.

A few months later, he started coughing up blood. After being rushed to the emergency department, doctors found that a slow-growing lung tumor had ruptured.

Three weeks later, he came out of the hospital with a collapsed lung – an effect of his chemotherapy, Dr. Washington said.

But that was hardly the last word. He soon experienced relapse with a “very aggressive” form of his disease, and in 2016, he underwent a stem cell transplant.

“He spent 1½ months in the hospital ... in isolation, not seeing our daughters,” Dr. Washington said. He lost his vision and developed grade 4 graft-versus-host disease, among other problems.

He was alive, just barely, Dr. Washington said.

“As you might imagine, I was pulled between the hospital and the home, taking care of our daughters, who were not seeing him during that time,” she recalled.

But every time someone asked her whether she was okay, she replied: “I am fine.”

“A total lie,” she admitted.

Dr. Washington felt frustrated, not only from the financial strain of out-of-pocket health care costs and lost earnings but also from fast evolving relationships and a feeling of being “unseen and underappreciated.”

Another jarring change: When her husband was discharged from the hospital, Dr. Washington was suddenly thrust into the role of full-time caretaker.

Her husband could not be left alone, his doctor had said. And with two young children, Dr. Washington did not know how she would manage.

The demands of being a full-time caregiver are intense. Caregivers, Dr. Washington explained, can spend 32 hours a week looking after a loved one with cancer.

Like Dr. Washington, most caregivers feel they have no choice but to take on this intense role – one for which they have little or no training or preparation. The nonstop demands leave little time for self-care and can lead to high rates of caregiver injury and illness.

Isolation often creeps in because it can be “hard to ask for help,” she said. About 30% of caregivers report having depression or anxiety, and 21% feel lonely.

“When he was very ill, I found it really difficult to connect with other people and my friends,” Dr. Washington recalled. “I didn’t feel like I could really adequately explain the kind of strain that I was under.”
 

Are patients fine?

Like caregivers, patients often say they are fine when they are not.

The toll cancer takes on patients is immense. Natacha Bolanos Fernandez, from the Lymphoma Coalition Europe, highlighted the physical, mental, and social strain that can affect patients with cancer.

The physical aspects can encompass a host of problems – fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, and the vomiting that accompanies many cancer treatments. Patients may face changes in their mobility and independence as well. The mental side of cancer can include anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, while the social aspects span changing, perhaps strained, relationships with family and friends.

Fatigue, in particular, is an underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated problem, Ms. Fernandez noted. According to recent survey data from the Lymphoma Coalition’s Global Patient Survey, 72% of patients reported fatigue. This problem worsened over time, with 59% reporting fatigue after their diagnosis and up to 82% among patients who experienced relapse two or more times.

Fatigue “may be getting worse rather than better over time,” Ms. Fernandez said, and many patients felt that their life had changed completely because of cancer-related fatigue.

To help patients manage, the Lymphoma Coalition has published a report on the impact of cancer-related fatigue and how to improve outcomes. Methods include greater awareness, regular screening, and interventions such as yoga or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
 

Are clinicians fine?

Nurses and physicians face challenges caring for patients with cancer.

Although “nurses love their jobs and are extremely committed,” the impact cancer has on a nursing career is often undervalued or “neglected,” said Lena Sharp, RN, PhD, of the Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm-Gotland.

Burnout, in particular, remains a problem among oncologists and nurses, and it was made worse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fatima Cardoso, MD, explained that burnout has an impact on doctors as well as patients because it affects communication with patients and performance. Physicians can, for instance, appear detached, emotional, or tired.

Patients may then feel less inclined to tell their oncologist how they’re feeling, said Dr. Cardoso, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon.

It is important to remember to not just focus on the patient’s disease or treatment but to also ask how they are doing and what is going on in their lives.

Above all, “show that you care,” said Dr. Cardoso.

The Lymphoma Coalition Europe has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Establishment Labs, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Roche, Takeda. Dr. Cardoso has relationships with Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “I thought I was as exhausted, and isolated, and neglected as I could get, and then he came home.”

Those were the words of Kate Washington, PhD, from Sacramento as she gave a moving account of the immense burden she felt as caregiver to her husband with cancer.

She was taking part in the session, “I am FINE: Frustrated * Isolated * Neglected * Emotional,” at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. In that session, speakers assessed the toll of cancer on patients, caregivers, nurses, and doctors.

Dr. Washington, author of “Already Toast: Caregiving and Burnout in America” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2021), explained that she cared for her husband and young family while he was “suffering through two different kinds of lymphoma and really devastating stem cell transplants.”

When her husband was first diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma in 2015, he was placed on a watch-and-wait protocol. At that point, he seemed fine, Dr. Washington said.

A few months later, he started coughing up blood. After being rushed to the emergency department, doctors found that a slow-growing lung tumor had ruptured.

Three weeks later, he came out of the hospital with a collapsed lung – an effect of his chemotherapy, Dr. Washington said.

But that was hardly the last word. He soon experienced relapse with a “very aggressive” form of his disease, and in 2016, he underwent a stem cell transplant.

“He spent 1½ months in the hospital ... in isolation, not seeing our daughters,” Dr. Washington said. He lost his vision and developed grade 4 graft-versus-host disease, among other problems.

He was alive, just barely, Dr. Washington said.

“As you might imagine, I was pulled between the hospital and the home, taking care of our daughters, who were not seeing him during that time,” she recalled.

But every time someone asked her whether she was okay, she replied: “I am fine.”

“A total lie,” she admitted.

Dr. Washington felt frustrated, not only from the financial strain of out-of-pocket health care costs and lost earnings but also from fast evolving relationships and a feeling of being “unseen and underappreciated.”

Another jarring change: When her husband was discharged from the hospital, Dr. Washington was suddenly thrust into the role of full-time caretaker.

Her husband could not be left alone, his doctor had said. And with two young children, Dr. Washington did not know how she would manage.

The demands of being a full-time caregiver are intense. Caregivers, Dr. Washington explained, can spend 32 hours a week looking after a loved one with cancer.

Like Dr. Washington, most caregivers feel they have no choice but to take on this intense role – one for which they have little or no training or preparation. The nonstop demands leave little time for self-care and can lead to high rates of caregiver injury and illness.

Isolation often creeps in because it can be “hard to ask for help,” she said. About 30% of caregivers report having depression or anxiety, and 21% feel lonely.

“When he was very ill, I found it really difficult to connect with other people and my friends,” Dr. Washington recalled. “I didn’t feel like I could really adequately explain the kind of strain that I was under.”
 

Are patients fine?

Like caregivers, patients often say they are fine when they are not.

The toll cancer takes on patients is immense. Natacha Bolanos Fernandez, from the Lymphoma Coalition Europe, highlighted the physical, mental, and social strain that can affect patients with cancer.

The physical aspects can encompass a host of problems – fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, and the vomiting that accompanies many cancer treatments. Patients may face changes in their mobility and independence as well. The mental side of cancer can include anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, while the social aspects span changing, perhaps strained, relationships with family and friends.

Fatigue, in particular, is an underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated problem, Ms. Fernandez noted. According to recent survey data from the Lymphoma Coalition’s Global Patient Survey, 72% of patients reported fatigue. This problem worsened over time, with 59% reporting fatigue after their diagnosis and up to 82% among patients who experienced relapse two or more times.

Fatigue “may be getting worse rather than better over time,” Ms. Fernandez said, and many patients felt that their life had changed completely because of cancer-related fatigue.

To help patients manage, the Lymphoma Coalition has published a report on the impact of cancer-related fatigue and how to improve outcomes. Methods include greater awareness, regular screening, and interventions such as yoga or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
 

Are clinicians fine?

Nurses and physicians face challenges caring for patients with cancer.

Although “nurses love their jobs and are extremely committed,” the impact cancer has on a nursing career is often undervalued or “neglected,” said Lena Sharp, RN, PhD, of the Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm-Gotland.

Burnout, in particular, remains a problem among oncologists and nurses, and it was made worse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fatima Cardoso, MD, explained that burnout has an impact on doctors as well as patients because it affects communication with patients and performance. Physicians can, for instance, appear detached, emotional, or tired.

Patients may then feel less inclined to tell their oncologist how they’re feeling, said Dr. Cardoso, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon.

It is important to remember to not just focus on the patient’s disease or treatment but to also ask how they are doing and what is going on in their lives.

Above all, “show that you care,” said Dr. Cardoso.

The Lymphoma Coalition Europe has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Establishment Labs, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Roche, Takeda. Dr. Cardoso has relationships with Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “I thought I was as exhausted, and isolated, and neglected as I could get, and then he came home.”

Those were the words of Kate Washington, PhD, from Sacramento as she gave a moving account of the immense burden she felt as caregiver to her husband with cancer.

She was taking part in the session, “I am FINE: Frustrated * Isolated * Neglected * Emotional,” at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. In that session, speakers assessed the toll of cancer on patients, caregivers, nurses, and doctors.

Dr. Washington, author of “Already Toast: Caregiving and Burnout in America” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2021), explained that she cared for her husband and young family while he was “suffering through two different kinds of lymphoma and really devastating stem cell transplants.”

When her husband was first diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma in 2015, he was placed on a watch-and-wait protocol. At that point, he seemed fine, Dr. Washington said.

A few months later, he started coughing up blood. After being rushed to the emergency department, doctors found that a slow-growing lung tumor had ruptured.

Three weeks later, he came out of the hospital with a collapsed lung – an effect of his chemotherapy, Dr. Washington said.

But that was hardly the last word. He soon experienced relapse with a “very aggressive” form of his disease, and in 2016, he underwent a stem cell transplant.

“He spent 1½ months in the hospital ... in isolation, not seeing our daughters,” Dr. Washington said. He lost his vision and developed grade 4 graft-versus-host disease, among other problems.

He was alive, just barely, Dr. Washington said.

“As you might imagine, I was pulled between the hospital and the home, taking care of our daughters, who were not seeing him during that time,” she recalled.

But every time someone asked her whether she was okay, she replied: “I am fine.”

“A total lie,” she admitted.

Dr. Washington felt frustrated, not only from the financial strain of out-of-pocket health care costs and lost earnings but also from fast evolving relationships and a feeling of being “unseen and underappreciated.”

Another jarring change: When her husband was discharged from the hospital, Dr. Washington was suddenly thrust into the role of full-time caretaker.

Her husband could not be left alone, his doctor had said. And with two young children, Dr. Washington did not know how she would manage.

The demands of being a full-time caregiver are intense. Caregivers, Dr. Washington explained, can spend 32 hours a week looking after a loved one with cancer.

Like Dr. Washington, most caregivers feel they have no choice but to take on this intense role – one for which they have little or no training or preparation. The nonstop demands leave little time for self-care and can lead to high rates of caregiver injury and illness.

Isolation often creeps in because it can be “hard to ask for help,” she said. About 30% of caregivers report having depression or anxiety, and 21% feel lonely.

“When he was very ill, I found it really difficult to connect with other people and my friends,” Dr. Washington recalled. “I didn’t feel like I could really adequately explain the kind of strain that I was under.”
 

Are patients fine?

Like caregivers, patients often say they are fine when they are not.

The toll cancer takes on patients is immense. Natacha Bolanos Fernandez, from the Lymphoma Coalition Europe, highlighted the physical, mental, and social strain that can affect patients with cancer.

The physical aspects can encompass a host of problems – fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, and the vomiting that accompanies many cancer treatments. Patients may face changes in their mobility and independence as well. The mental side of cancer can include anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, while the social aspects span changing, perhaps strained, relationships with family and friends.

Fatigue, in particular, is an underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated problem, Ms. Fernandez noted. According to recent survey data from the Lymphoma Coalition’s Global Patient Survey, 72% of patients reported fatigue. This problem worsened over time, with 59% reporting fatigue after their diagnosis and up to 82% among patients who experienced relapse two or more times.

Fatigue “may be getting worse rather than better over time,” Ms. Fernandez said, and many patients felt that their life had changed completely because of cancer-related fatigue.

To help patients manage, the Lymphoma Coalition has published a report on the impact of cancer-related fatigue and how to improve outcomes. Methods include greater awareness, regular screening, and interventions such as yoga or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
 

Are clinicians fine?

Nurses and physicians face challenges caring for patients with cancer.

Although “nurses love their jobs and are extremely committed,” the impact cancer has on a nursing career is often undervalued or “neglected,” said Lena Sharp, RN, PhD, of the Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm-Gotland.

Burnout, in particular, remains a problem among oncologists and nurses, and it was made worse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fatima Cardoso, MD, explained that burnout has an impact on doctors as well as patients because it affects communication with patients and performance. Physicians can, for instance, appear detached, emotional, or tired.

Patients may then feel less inclined to tell their oncologist how they’re feeling, said Dr. Cardoso, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon.

It is important to remember to not just focus on the patient’s disease or treatment but to also ask how they are doing and what is going on in their lives.

Above all, “show that you care,” said Dr. Cardoso.

The Lymphoma Coalition Europe has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Establishment Labs, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Roche, Takeda. Dr. Cardoso has relationships with Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

New guidelines highlight the role that integrative pain management techniques, such as massage, acupuncture, and music therapy, can play in relieving certain types of cancer pain in adults.

The recommendations, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, represent a joint effort between the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Integrative Oncology (SIO) to guide clinicians on how best to weave various nonpharmacologic pain management strategies into cancer care.

“Pain is a clinical challenge for many oncology patients and clinicians, and there’s a growing body of evidence showing that integrative therapies can be useful in pain management,” Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, explained in a press release.

However, clear clinical guidance as to when and when not to use these approaches is lacking, said Dr. Greenlee, cochair of the SIO Clinical Practice Guideline Committee.

Previous guidelines from ASCO on managing chronic cancer-related pain largely focused on diagnosing pain and on pharmacologic interventions, and they touched only on evidence related to nonpharmacologic options.

The new guideline “takes a deeper dive on the use of integrative therapies, which is important because clinicians and patients need to have access to the latest evidence-based information to make clinical decisions,” noted Jun H. Mao, MD, SIO-ASCO panel cochair.

In the guidance, the expert panel addresses two core questions: What mind-body therapies are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer, and what natural products are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer?

The panel conducted a literature search and identified 277 relevant studies. They included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated outcomes related to pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. After reaching a consensus, the expert panel made recommendations on the basis of the strength of the available evidence.

Regarding modalities for which there was stronger evidence, the panel highlighted several recommendations regarding acupuncture, reflexology, hypnosis, and massage.

The panel determined, for instance, that acupuncture should be offered for aromatase-related joint pain in patients with breast cancer and that it can be offered for general or musculoskeletal pain from cancer. It recommended reflexology or acupressure for pain experienced during systemic therapy for cancer. Hypnosis is an option for patients experiencing procedural pain in cancer treatment or diagnostic workups, and massage is an option for pain experienced during palliative or hospice care or following breast cancer treatment.

These recommendations were considered moderate in strength and were based on intermediate levels of evidence that demonstrated that the benefits outweighed risks.

The panel added several recommendations it deemed to be weak in strength and that were based on low-quality evidence. These include Hatha yoga for patients experiencing pain after treatment for breast or head and neck cancers, and music therapy for patients experiencing pain from cancer surgery.

The experts also identified areas “potentially relevant to cancer care but needing more research,” such as the safety and efficacy of natural products, including omega-3 fatty acids and glutamine, and determined that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients.

“With improved oncology treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, more patients diagnosed with cancer are living longer; therefore, pain and symptom management is critical for improving quality of life,” Dr. Mao, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “The SIO-ASCO clinical guideline will provide very timely recommendations for physicians to incorporate nonpharmacological treatments such as acupuncture and massage to improve pain management for patients impacted by cancer.”

However, clinical uptake of such treatments “is always a concern,” said panel cochair Eduardo Bruera, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “We are hoping that by showing the growing evidence that is out there, health care systems will start hiring these kinds of practitioners and insurance systems will start covering these treatments, because more and more, these are being shown to be effective at managing pain for cancer populations,” Dr. Bruera said.

The SIO-ASCO panel’s work was supported by a grant from the Samueli Foundation to the Society for Integrative Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidelines highlight the role that integrative pain management techniques, such as massage, acupuncture, and music therapy, can play in relieving certain types of cancer pain in adults.

The recommendations, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, represent a joint effort between the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Integrative Oncology (SIO) to guide clinicians on how best to weave various nonpharmacologic pain management strategies into cancer care.

“Pain is a clinical challenge for many oncology patients and clinicians, and there’s a growing body of evidence showing that integrative therapies can be useful in pain management,” Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, explained in a press release.

However, clear clinical guidance as to when and when not to use these approaches is lacking, said Dr. Greenlee, cochair of the SIO Clinical Practice Guideline Committee.

Previous guidelines from ASCO on managing chronic cancer-related pain largely focused on diagnosing pain and on pharmacologic interventions, and they touched only on evidence related to nonpharmacologic options.

The new guideline “takes a deeper dive on the use of integrative therapies, which is important because clinicians and patients need to have access to the latest evidence-based information to make clinical decisions,” noted Jun H. Mao, MD, SIO-ASCO panel cochair.

In the guidance, the expert panel addresses two core questions: What mind-body therapies are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer, and what natural products are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer?

The panel conducted a literature search and identified 277 relevant studies. They included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated outcomes related to pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. After reaching a consensus, the expert panel made recommendations on the basis of the strength of the available evidence.

Regarding modalities for which there was stronger evidence, the panel highlighted several recommendations regarding acupuncture, reflexology, hypnosis, and massage.

The panel determined, for instance, that acupuncture should be offered for aromatase-related joint pain in patients with breast cancer and that it can be offered for general or musculoskeletal pain from cancer. It recommended reflexology or acupressure for pain experienced during systemic therapy for cancer. Hypnosis is an option for patients experiencing procedural pain in cancer treatment or diagnostic workups, and massage is an option for pain experienced during palliative or hospice care or following breast cancer treatment.

These recommendations were considered moderate in strength and were based on intermediate levels of evidence that demonstrated that the benefits outweighed risks.

The panel added several recommendations it deemed to be weak in strength and that were based on low-quality evidence. These include Hatha yoga for patients experiencing pain after treatment for breast or head and neck cancers, and music therapy for patients experiencing pain from cancer surgery.

The experts also identified areas “potentially relevant to cancer care but needing more research,” such as the safety and efficacy of natural products, including omega-3 fatty acids and glutamine, and determined that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients.

“With improved oncology treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, more patients diagnosed with cancer are living longer; therefore, pain and symptom management is critical for improving quality of life,” Dr. Mao, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “The SIO-ASCO clinical guideline will provide very timely recommendations for physicians to incorporate nonpharmacological treatments such as acupuncture and massage to improve pain management for patients impacted by cancer.”

However, clinical uptake of such treatments “is always a concern,” said panel cochair Eduardo Bruera, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “We are hoping that by showing the growing evidence that is out there, health care systems will start hiring these kinds of practitioners and insurance systems will start covering these treatments, because more and more, these are being shown to be effective at managing pain for cancer populations,” Dr. Bruera said.

The SIO-ASCO panel’s work was supported by a grant from the Samueli Foundation to the Society for Integrative Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidelines highlight the role that integrative pain management techniques, such as massage, acupuncture, and music therapy, can play in relieving certain types of cancer pain in adults.

The recommendations, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, represent a joint effort between the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Integrative Oncology (SIO) to guide clinicians on how best to weave various nonpharmacologic pain management strategies into cancer care.

“Pain is a clinical challenge for many oncology patients and clinicians, and there’s a growing body of evidence showing that integrative therapies can be useful in pain management,” Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, explained in a press release.

However, clear clinical guidance as to when and when not to use these approaches is lacking, said Dr. Greenlee, cochair of the SIO Clinical Practice Guideline Committee.

Previous guidelines from ASCO on managing chronic cancer-related pain largely focused on diagnosing pain and on pharmacologic interventions, and they touched only on evidence related to nonpharmacologic options.

The new guideline “takes a deeper dive on the use of integrative therapies, which is important because clinicians and patients need to have access to the latest evidence-based information to make clinical decisions,” noted Jun H. Mao, MD, SIO-ASCO panel cochair.

In the guidance, the expert panel addresses two core questions: What mind-body therapies are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer, and what natural products are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer?

The panel conducted a literature search and identified 277 relevant studies. They included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated outcomes related to pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. After reaching a consensus, the expert panel made recommendations on the basis of the strength of the available evidence.

Regarding modalities for which there was stronger evidence, the panel highlighted several recommendations regarding acupuncture, reflexology, hypnosis, and massage.

The panel determined, for instance, that acupuncture should be offered for aromatase-related joint pain in patients with breast cancer and that it can be offered for general or musculoskeletal pain from cancer. It recommended reflexology or acupressure for pain experienced during systemic therapy for cancer. Hypnosis is an option for patients experiencing procedural pain in cancer treatment or diagnostic workups, and massage is an option for pain experienced during palliative or hospice care or following breast cancer treatment.

These recommendations were considered moderate in strength and were based on intermediate levels of evidence that demonstrated that the benefits outweighed risks.

The panel added several recommendations it deemed to be weak in strength and that were based on low-quality evidence. These include Hatha yoga for patients experiencing pain after treatment for breast or head and neck cancers, and music therapy for patients experiencing pain from cancer surgery.

The experts also identified areas “potentially relevant to cancer care but needing more research,” such as the safety and efficacy of natural products, including omega-3 fatty acids and glutamine, and determined that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients.

“With improved oncology treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, more patients diagnosed with cancer are living longer; therefore, pain and symptom management is critical for improving quality of life,” Dr. Mao, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “The SIO-ASCO clinical guideline will provide very timely recommendations for physicians to incorporate nonpharmacological treatments such as acupuncture and massage to improve pain management for patients impacted by cancer.”

However, clinical uptake of such treatments “is always a concern,” said panel cochair Eduardo Bruera, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “We are hoping that by showing the growing evidence that is out there, health care systems will start hiring these kinds of practitioners and insurance systems will start covering these treatments, because more and more, these are being shown to be effective at managing pain for cancer populations,” Dr. Bruera said.

The SIO-ASCO panel’s work was supported by a grant from the Samueli Foundation to the Society for Integrative Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.