Patient & Survivor Care

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

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

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

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

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

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

The antidepressant bupropion failed to improve sexual dysfunction in female cancer survivors, according to new findings published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as a measurement tool, investigators found that desire scores were not significantly different for participants who received bupropion versus a placebo over the 9-week study period.

“Sexual health is a complex phenomenon and [our results suggest that] no one intervention is going to solve the broader issue,” lead author Debra Barton, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor in the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Sexual dysfunction is common among cancer survivors and experienced across multiple cancer types and stages of disease. Research shows that as many as 70% of female cancer survivors report loss of desire, compared with up to one-third of the general population.

Common sexual concerns among female cancer survivors include low desire, arousal issues, lack of appropriate lubrication, difficulty in achieving orgasm, and pain with penetrative sexual activity. Additionally, these women may experience significant overlap of symptoms, and often encounter multiple sexual issues that are exacerbated by a range of cancer treatments.

“It’s a huge problem,” Maryam B. Lustberg, MD, MPH, from Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Despite the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among cancer survivors, effective treatments remain elusive. Preliminary evidence suggests that bupropion, already approved for seasonal affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and smoking cessation, may also enhance libido.

Dr. Barton and colleagues conducted this phase 2 trial to determine whether bupropion can improve sexual desire in female cancer survivors without undesirable side effects.

In the study, Dr. Barton and colleagues compared two dose levels of extended-release bupropion in a cohort of 230 postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer and low baseline FSFI desire scores (<3.3), who had completed definitive cancer therapy.

Participants were randomized to receive either 150 mg (79 patients) or 300 mg (74 patients) once daily of extended-release bupropion, or placebo (77 patients).

Barton and colleagues then evaluated whether sexual desire significantly improved over the 9-week study period comparing the bupropion arms and the placebo group.

Overall, the authors found no significant differences (mean between-arm change for 150 mg once daily and placebo of 0.02; P = .93; mean between-arm change for 300 mg once daily and placebo of –0.02; P = .92). Mean scores at 9 weeks on the desire subscale were 2.17, 2.27, and 2.30 for 150 mg, 300 mg, and the placebo group, respectively.

In addition, none of the subscales – which included arousal, lubrication, and orgasm – or the total score showed a significant difference between arms at either 5 or 9 weeks.

Bupropion did, however, appear to be well tolerated. No grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred. In the 150-mg bupropion arm, two patients (2.6%) experienced a grade 3 event (insomnia and headache) and one patient in the 300-mg bupropion arm (1.4%) and placebo arm (1.3%) experienced a grade 3 event related to treatment (hypertension and headache, respectively).

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Lustberg and colleagues “applaud the authors for conducting a study in this population of cancer survivors,” noting that “evidenced-based approaches have not been extensively studied.”

Dr. Lustberg and colleagues also commented that other randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating sexual desire disorder assessed outcomes using additional metrics, such as the Female Sexual Distress Scale–Revised questionnaire, which measures distress related to sexual dysfunction and low desire, in particular.

“The use of specific validated instruments for libido in place of the FSFI might have helped determine the effect of the study intervention in this reported trial,” they wrote.

Overall, according to Dr. Lustberg and colleagues, the negative results of this study indicate that a multidisciplinary clinical approach may be needed.

“As much as we would like to have one intervention that addresses this prominent issue, the evidence strongly suggests that cancer-related sexual problems may need an integrative biopsychosocial model that intervenes on biologic, psychologic, interpersonal, and social-cultural factors, not just on one factor, such as libido,” they wrote. “Such work may require access to multidisciplinary care with specialists in women’s health, pelvic floor rehabilitation, and psychosocial oncology.”

Dr. Barton said she has been developing a multicomponent approach to addressing sexual health in female cancer survivors.

However, she noted, “there is still much we do not fully understand about the broader impact of the degree of hormone deprivation in the population of female cancer survivors. A better understanding would provide clearer targets for interventions.” 

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Barton has disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Lustberg reported receiving honoraria from Novartis and Biotheranostics; consulting or advising with PledPharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Pfizer; and other relationships with Cynosure/Hologic.

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

The antidepressant bupropion failed to improve sexual dysfunction in female cancer survivors, according to new findings published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as a measurement tool, investigators found that desire scores were not significantly different for participants who received bupropion versus a placebo over the 9-week study period.

“Sexual health is a complex phenomenon and [our results suggest that] no one intervention is going to solve the broader issue,” lead author Debra Barton, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor in the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Sexual dysfunction is common among cancer survivors and experienced across multiple cancer types and stages of disease. Research shows that as many as 70% of female cancer survivors report loss of desire, compared with up to one-third of the general population.

Common sexual concerns among female cancer survivors include low desire, arousal issues, lack of appropriate lubrication, difficulty in achieving orgasm, and pain with penetrative sexual activity. Additionally, these women may experience significant overlap of symptoms, and often encounter multiple sexual issues that are exacerbated by a range of cancer treatments.

“It’s a huge problem,” Maryam B. Lustberg, MD, MPH, from Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Despite the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among cancer survivors, effective treatments remain elusive. Preliminary evidence suggests that bupropion, already approved for seasonal affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and smoking cessation, may also enhance libido.

Dr. Barton and colleagues conducted this phase 2 trial to determine whether bupropion can improve sexual desire in female cancer survivors without undesirable side effects.

In the study, Dr. Barton and colleagues compared two dose levels of extended-release bupropion in a cohort of 230 postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer and low baseline FSFI desire scores (<3.3), who had completed definitive cancer therapy.

Participants were randomized to receive either 150 mg (79 patients) or 300 mg (74 patients) once daily of extended-release bupropion, or placebo (77 patients).

Barton and colleagues then evaluated whether sexual desire significantly improved over the 9-week study period comparing the bupropion arms and the placebo group.

Overall, the authors found no significant differences (mean between-arm change for 150 mg once daily and placebo of 0.02; P = .93; mean between-arm change for 300 mg once daily and placebo of –0.02; P = .92). Mean scores at 9 weeks on the desire subscale were 2.17, 2.27, and 2.30 for 150 mg, 300 mg, and the placebo group, respectively.

In addition, none of the subscales – which included arousal, lubrication, and orgasm – or the total score showed a significant difference between arms at either 5 or 9 weeks.

Bupropion did, however, appear to be well tolerated. No grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred. In the 150-mg bupropion arm, two patients (2.6%) experienced a grade 3 event (insomnia and headache) and one patient in the 300-mg bupropion arm (1.4%) and placebo arm (1.3%) experienced a grade 3 event related to treatment (hypertension and headache, respectively).

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Lustberg and colleagues “applaud the authors for conducting a study in this population of cancer survivors,” noting that “evidenced-based approaches have not been extensively studied.”

Dr. Lustberg and colleagues also commented that other randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating sexual desire disorder assessed outcomes using additional metrics, such as the Female Sexual Distress Scale–Revised questionnaire, which measures distress related to sexual dysfunction and low desire, in particular.

“The use of specific validated instruments for libido in place of the FSFI might have helped determine the effect of the study intervention in this reported trial,” they wrote.

Overall, according to Dr. Lustberg and colleagues, the negative results of this study indicate that a multidisciplinary clinical approach may be needed.

“As much as we would like to have one intervention that addresses this prominent issue, the evidence strongly suggests that cancer-related sexual problems may need an integrative biopsychosocial model that intervenes on biologic, psychologic, interpersonal, and social-cultural factors, not just on one factor, such as libido,” they wrote. “Such work may require access to multidisciplinary care with specialists in women’s health, pelvic floor rehabilitation, and psychosocial oncology.”

Dr. Barton said she has been developing a multicomponent approach to addressing sexual health in female cancer survivors.

However, she noted, “there is still much we do not fully understand about the broader impact of the degree of hormone deprivation in the population of female cancer survivors. A better understanding would provide clearer targets for interventions.” 

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Barton has disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Lustberg reported receiving honoraria from Novartis and Biotheranostics; consulting or advising with PledPharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Pfizer; and other relationships with Cynosure/Hologic.

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

The antidepressant bupropion failed to improve sexual dysfunction in female cancer survivors, according to new findings published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as a measurement tool, investigators found that desire scores were not significantly different for participants who received bupropion versus a placebo over the 9-week study period.

“Sexual health is a complex phenomenon and [our results suggest that] no one intervention is going to solve the broader issue,” lead author Debra Barton, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor in the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Sexual dysfunction is common among cancer survivors and experienced across multiple cancer types and stages of disease. Research shows that as many as 70% of female cancer survivors report loss of desire, compared with up to one-third of the general population.

Common sexual concerns among female cancer survivors include low desire, arousal issues, lack of appropriate lubrication, difficulty in achieving orgasm, and pain with penetrative sexual activity. Additionally, these women may experience significant overlap of symptoms, and often encounter multiple sexual issues that are exacerbated by a range of cancer treatments.

“It’s a huge problem,” Maryam B. Lustberg, MD, MPH, from Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Despite the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among cancer survivors, effective treatments remain elusive. Preliminary evidence suggests that bupropion, already approved for seasonal affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and smoking cessation, may also enhance libido.

Dr. Barton and colleagues conducted this phase 2 trial to determine whether bupropion can improve sexual desire in female cancer survivors without undesirable side effects.

In the study, Dr. Barton and colleagues compared two dose levels of extended-release bupropion in a cohort of 230 postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer and low baseline FSFI desire scores (<3.3), who had completed definitive cancer therapy.

Participants were randomized to receive either 150 mg (79 patients) or 300 mg (74 patients) once daily of extended-release bupropion, or placebo (77 patients).

Barton and colleagues then evaluated whether sexual desire significantly improved over the 9-week study period comparing the bupropion arms and the placebo group.

Overall, the authors found no significant differences (mean between-arm change for 150 mg once daily and placebo of 0.02; P = .93; mean between-arm change for 300 mg once daily and placebo of –0.02; P = .92). Mean scores at 9 weeks on the desire subscale were 2.17, 2.27, and 2.30 for 150 mg, 300 mg, and the placebo group, respectively.

In addition, none of the subscales – which included arousal, lubrication, and orgasm – or the total score showed a significant difference between arms at either 5 or 9 weeks.

Bupropion did, however, appear to be well tolerated. No grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred. In the 150-mg bupropion arm, two patients (2.6%) experienced a grade 3 event (insomnia and headache) and one patient in the 300-mg bupropion arm (1.4%) and placebo arm (1.3%) experienced a grade 3 event related to treatment (hypertension and headache, respectively).

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Lustberg and colleagues “applaud the authors for conducting a study in this population of cancer survivors,” noting that “evidenced-based approaches have not been extensively studied.”

Dr. Lustberg and colleagues also commented that other randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating sexual desire disorder assessed outcomes using additional metrics, such as the Female Sexual Distress Scale–Revised questionnaire, which measures distress related to sexual dysfunction and low desire, in particular.

“The use of specific validated instruments for libido in place of the FSFI might have helped determine the effect of the study intervention in this reported trial,” they wrote.

Overall, according to Dr. Lustberg and colleagues, the negative results of this study indicate that a multidisciplinary clinical approach may be needed.

“As much as we would like to have one intervention that addresses this prominent issue, the evidence strongly suggests that cancer-related sexual problems may need an integrative biopsychosocial model that intervenes on biologic, psychologic, interpersonal, and social-cultural factors, not just on one factor, such as libido,” they wrote. “Such work may require access to multidisciplinary care with specialists in women’s health, pelvic floor rehabilitation, and psychosocial oncology.”

Dr. Barton said she has been developing a multicomponent approach to addressing sexual health in female cancer survivors.

However, she noted, “there is still much we do not fully understand about the broader impact of the degree of hormone deprivation in the population of female cancer survivors. A better understanding would provide clearer targets for interventions.” 

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Barton has disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Lustberg reported receiving honoraria from Novartis and Biotheranostics; consulting or advising with PledPharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Pfizer; and other relationships with Cynosure/Hologic.

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

People with multiple preexisting chronic conditions experience a longer wait to receive a diagnosis of cancer and are more likely to be referred to an emergency department for their cancer, according to new research.

These findings are based on a retrospective study of data from 11,716 cancer patients from the United Kingdom’s National Cancer Diagnosis Audit – an initiative that aimed to better understand the journey of cancer patients from primary care to diagnosis. Three-quarters of the study participants had at least one morbidity in their primary care record, according to the authors of the new research, which was published in Family Practice (2021 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmab139).

In their analysis of all of the patient data, Minjoung M. Koo and colleagues found that the median time between first presenting to a primary care physician with cancer symptoms and being referred to a specialist was 5 days. For all patients studied, the median time to receiving a cancer diagnosis was 42 days, the investigators wrote.

Patients with multiple morbidities were 26% more likely to have their cancer diagnosed at least 60 days after the initial primary care consultation than were those without morbidities (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.45). This was true after adjustment for confounders, including morbidity, sex, age, and cancer. Similarly, those with a Charlson score of 3 or above – signifying more severe comorbidities – had a 19% greater odds of being diagnosed more than 60 days after presenting to primary care (95% CI, 1.01-1.40)
 

Older adults ‘less likely to be screen-detected’

Dr. Fran Boyle, professor of medical oncology at the University of Sydney, Australia, said it wasn’t clear from the study whether people with multiple comorbidities may have symptoms that cloud the diagnostic process, or whether short primary care consultations may not allow for enough time to manage multiple issues.

“Older adults typically have more comorbidities, and they are less likely to be screen-detected; for example, breast cancer screening and bowel cancer screening typically stop after 75,” said Dr. Boyle, director of Patricia Ritchie Centre for Cancer Care and Research at Sydney’s Mater Hospital.

Dr. Boyle pointed to a recent systematic review in Australian rural oncology that suggested that patients with more comorbidities tend to be offered less intense treatment, and have higher operative mortality and morbidity, which can contribute to less effective therapy.
 

Referral delays seen in multiple patient groups

Ms. Koo, from the University College London and the National Disease Registration Service in the United Kingdom, and coauthors noted a nonsignificant trend toward increased intervals between primary care consultation and referral or diagnosis even in patients with one or more comorbidities.

A higher burden of comorbidities also meant patients were more likely to have more than one primary care consultation before being referred to a specialist. Those with three or more comorbidities were 21% more likely to have at least three consultations before referral, compared with patients with no comorbidities (95% CI, 1.05-1.40, P = .010).

Overall, 60% of the participants in the study experienced at least one investigation into whether they had cancer by a primary care clinician before being referred to a specialist.
 

Morbidities linked with emergency referral

The study also saw an association between morbidities and the likelihood of receiving an emergency referral. Those with three or more morbidities were 60% more likely to have an emergency referral than were those with no comorbidities. Those with a Charlson score of three or above were 61% more likely to be referred to an emergency department.

“The greater likelihood of clinical complexity or acute deterior­ation among individuals with multiple or severe chronic conditions means that an emergency referral may be clinically appropriate,” the authors wrote.

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Diane M. Harper, professor of family medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said primary care patients often have multiple chronic illnesses, and the relationship between the physician and patients determines how quickly symptoms of cancer are explored.

“What this work cannot explore is the quality of discussions between the physician and the patient, nor can it explore how the decision to go to the ED was made,” said Dr. Harper, president of the North American Primary Care Research Group. “Exploring these data would provide important information to the physician-patient dyad.”
 

Diagnostic difficulty might have been at play, according to authors

The investigators didn’t find any evidence of an interaction between cancer site, number of morbidities, and referral or diagnostic time, except in cases of colorectal cancer, where patients with multiple morbidities were more likely to experience a longer wait between primary care consultation and diagnosis.

The authors observed that diagnostic difficulty of the cancer might have been at play here, given that colorectal cancer can have a broad symptom signature.

“This was less often observed among patients diagnosed with a cancer that had a narrow symptom signature (“easy” diagnostic difficulty, e.g. breast cancer) or a broad symptom signature of mostly low PPVs (“hard” diagnostic difficulty, e.g. brain cancer),” they wrote.

The authors concluded that “it is reasonable to sug­gest that both improvement efforts and future research in this field should target patients with multiple or severe morbidity, and explore the reasons for prolonged diagnostic intervals in specialist care.”

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK. The authors and experts interviewed for this piece did not declare having any conflicts of interest.

People with multiple preexisting chronic conditions experience a longer wait to receive a diagnosis of cancer and are more likely to be referred to an emergency department for their cancer, according to new research.

These findings are based on a retrospective study of data from 11,716 cancer patients from the United Kingdom’s National Cancer Diagnosis Audit – an initiative that aimed to better understand the journey of cancer patients from primary care to diagnosis. Three-quarters of the study participants had at least one morbidity in their primary care record, according to the authors of the new research, which was published in Family Practice (2021 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmab139).

In their analysis of all of the patient data, Minjoung M. Koo and colleagues found that the median time between first presenting to a primary care physician with cancer symptoms and being referred to a specialist was 5 days. For all patients studied, the median time to receiving a cancer diagnosis was 42 days, the investigators wrote.

Patients with multiple morbidities were 26% more likely to have their cancer diagnosed at least 60 days after the initial primary care consultation than were those without morbidities (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.45). This was true after adjustment for confounders, including morbidity, sex, age, and cancer. Similarly, those with a Charlson score of 3 or above – signifying more severe comorbidities – had a 19% greater odds of being diagnosed more than 60 days after presenting to primary care (95% CI, 1.01-1.40)
 

Older adults ‘less likely to be screen-detected’

Dr. Fran Boyle, professor of medical oncology at the University of Sydney, Australia, said it wasn’t clear from the study whether people with multiple comorbidities may have symptoms that cloud the diagnostic process, or whether short primary care consultations may not allow for enough time to manage multiple issues.

“Older adults typically have more comorbidities, and they are less likely to be screen-detected; for example, breast cancer screening and bowel cancer screening typically stop after 75,” said Dr. Boyle, director of Patricia Ritchie Centre for Cancer Care and Research at Sydney’s Mater Hospital.

Dr. Boyle pointed to a recent systematic review in Australian rural oncology that suggested that patients with more comorbidities tend to be offered less intense treatment, and have higher operative mortality and morbidity, which can contribute to less effective therapy.
 

Referral delays seen in multiple patient groups

Ms. Koo, from the University College London and the National Disease Registration Service in the United Kingdom, and coauthors noted a nonsignificant trend toward increased intervals between primary care consultation and referral or diagnosis even in patients with one or more comorbidities.

A higher burden of comorbidities also meant patients were more likely to have more than one primary care consultation before being referred to a specialist. Those with three or more comorbidities were 21% more likely to have at least three consultations before referral, compared with patients with no comorbidities (95% CI, 1.05-1.40, P = .010).

Overall, 60% of the participants in the study experienced at least one investigation into whether they had cancer by a primary care clinician before being referred to a specialist.
 

Morbidities linked with emergency referral

The study also saw an association between morbidities and the likelihood of receiving an emergency referral. Those with three or more morbidities were 60% more likely to have an emergency referral than were those with no comorbidities. Those with a Charlson score of three or above were 61% more likely to be referred to an emergency department.

“The greater likelihood of clinical complexity or acute deterior­ation among individuals with multiple or severe chronic conditions means that an emergency referral may be clinically appropriate,” the authors wrote.

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Diane M. Harper, professor of family medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said primary care patients often have multiple chronic illnesses, and the relationship between the physician and patients determines how quickly symptoms of cancer are explored.

“What this work cannot explore is the quality of discussions between the physician and the patient, nor can it explore how the decision to go to the ED was made,” said Dr. Harper, president of the North American Primary Care Research Group. “Exploring these data would provide important information to the physician-patient dyad.”
 

Diagnostic difficulty might have been at play, according to authors

The investigators didn’t find any evidence of an interaction between cancer site, number of morbidities, and referral or diagnostic time, except in cases of colorectal cancer, where patients with multiple morbidities were more likely to experience a longer wait between primary care consultation and diagnosis.

The authors observed that diagnostic difficulty of the cancer might have been at play here, given that colorectal cancer can have a broad symptom signature.

“This was less often observed among patients diagnosed with a cancer that had a narrow symptom signature (“easy” diagnostic difficulty, e.g. breast cancer) or a broad symptom signature of mostly low PPVs (“hard” diagnostic difficulty, e.g. brain cancer),” they wrote.

The authors concluded that “it is reasonable to sug­gest that both improvement efforts and future research in this field should target patients with multiple or severe morbidity, and explore the reasons for prolonged diagnostic intervals in specialist care.”

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK. The authors and experts interviewed for this piece did not declare having any conflicts of interest.

People with multiple preexisting chronic conditions experience a longer wait to receive a diagnosis of cancer and are more likely to be referred to an emergency department for their cancer, according to new research.

These findings are based on a retrospective study of data from 11,716 cancer patients from the United Kingdom’s National Cancer Diagnosis Audit – an initiative that aimed to better understand the journey of cancer patients from primary care to diagnosis. Three-quarters of the study participants had at least one morbidity in their primary care record, according to the authors of the new research, which was published in Family Practice (2021 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmab139).

In their analysis of all of the patient data, Minjoung M. Koo and colleagues found that the median time between first presenting to a primary care physician with cancer symptoms and being referred to a specialist was 5 days. For all patients studied, the median time to receiving a cancer diagnosis was 42 days, the investigators wrote.

Patients with multiple morbidities were 26% more likely to have their cancer diagnosed at least 60 days after the initial primary care consultation than were those without morbidities (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.45). This was true after adjustment for confounders, including morbidity, sex, age, and cancer. Similarly, those with a Charlson score of 3 or above – signifying more severe comorbidities – had a 19% greater odds of being diagnosed more than 60 days after presenting to primary care (95% CI, 1.01-1.40)
 

Older adults ‘less likely to be screen-detected’

Dr. Fran Boyle, professor of medical oncology at the University of Sydney, Australia, said it wasn’t clear from the study whether people with multiple comorbidities may have symptoms that cloud the diagnostic process, or whether short primary care consultations may not allow for enough time to manage multiple issues.

“Older adults typically have more comorbidities, and they are less likely to be screen-detected; for example, breast cancer screening and bowel cancer screening typically stop after 75,” said Dr. Boyle, director of Patricia Ritchie Centre for Cancer Care and Research at Sydney’s Mater Hospital.

Dr. Boyle pointed to a recent systematic review in Australian rural oncology that suggested that patients with more comorbidities tend to be offered less intense treatment, and have higher operative mortality and morbidity, which can contribute to less effective therapy.
 

Referral delays seen in multiple patient groups

Ms. Koo, from the University College London and the National Disease Registration Service in the United Kingdom, and coauthors noted a nonsignificant trend toward increased intervals between primary care consultation and referral or diagnosis even in patients with one or more comorbidities.

A higher burden of comorbidities also meant patients were more likely to have more than one primary care consultation before being referred to a specialist. Those with three or more comorbidities were 21% more likely to have at least three consultations before referral, compared with patients with no comorbidities (95% CI, 1.05-1.40, P = .010).

Overall, 60% of the participants in the study experienced at least one investigation into whether they had cancer by a primary care clinician before being referred to a specialist.
 

Morbidities linked with emergency referral

The study also saw an association between morbidities and the likelihood of receiving an emergency referral. Those with three or more morbidities were 60% more likely to have an emergency referral than were those with no comorbidities. Those with a Charlson score of three or above were 61% more likely to be referred to an emergency department.

“The greater likelihood of clinical complexity or acute deterior­ation among individuals with multiple or severe chronic conditions means that an emergency referral may be clinically appropriate,” the authors wrote.

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Diane M. Harper, professor of family medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said primary care patients often have multiple chronic illnesses, and the relationship between the physician and patients determines how quickly symptoms of cancer are explored.

“What this work cannot explore is the quality of discussions between the physician and the patient, nor can it explore how the decision to go to the ED was made,” said Dr. Harper, president of the North American Primary Care Research Group. “Exploring these data would provide important information to the physician-patient dyad.”
 

Diagnostic difficulty might have been at play, according to authors

The investigators didn’t find any evidence of an interaction between cancer site, number of morbidities, and referral or diagnostic time, except in cases of colorectal cancer, where patients with multiple morbidities were more likely to experience a longer wait between primary care consultation and diagnosis.

The authors observed that diagnostic difficulty of the cancer might have been at play here, given that colorectal cancer can have a broad symptom signature.

“This was less often observed among patients diagnosed with a cancer that had a narrow symptom signature (“easy” diagnostic difficulty, e.g. breast cancer) or a broad symptom signature of mostly low PPVs (“hard” diagnostic difficulty, e.g. brain cancer),” they wrote.

The authors concluded that “it is reasonable to sug­gest that both improvement efforts and future research in this field should target patients with multiple or severe morbidity, and explore the reasons for prolonged diagnostic intervals in specialist care.”

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK. The authors and experts interviewed for this piece did not declare having any conflicts of interest.

End-of-life discussions happen too late in the treatment of high-risk acute myelogenous leukemia, according to a review of 200 patients at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.

Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.

Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.

When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.

He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.

Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.

“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”

Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.

As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”

“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.

Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.

Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.

The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.

There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.

[email protected]

End-of-life discussions happen too late in the treatment of high-risk acute myelogenous leukemia, according to a review of 200 patients at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.

Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.

Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.

When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.

He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.

Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.

“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”

Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.

As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”

“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.

Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.

Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.

The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.

There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.

[email protected]

End-of-life discussions happen too late in the treatment of high-risk acute myelogenous leukemia, according to a review of 200 patients at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.

Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.

Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.

When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.

He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.

Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.

“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”

Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.

As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”

“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.

Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.

Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.

The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.

There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.

[email protected]

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices has voted to recommend Shingrix (zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted) for the prevention of shingles in immunodeficient or immunosuppressed adults aged 19 or older. The recommendation was approved Oct. 20 by a unanimous vote.

Shingles is a reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox. There are about 1 million cases of shingles in the United States every year, according to CDC estimates, and one in three Americans will develop shingles over their lifetime. While adults older than 50 are one of the most vulnerable groups to reinfection – with about 99% having been infected with VZV – a weakened immune system is another common risk factor.

The Food and Drug Administration originally approved Shingrix in 2017 for the prevention of shingles in adults over 50; in July of this year, the vaccine was approved for immunodeficient adults aged 18 or older. The approval and subsequent recommendation by ACIP were based on clinical studies of Shingrix in adults being treated for hematologic malignancies or those who had undergone an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

According to a press statement from the FDA, “Further safety and immunogenicity data were generated in adults who were, or were anticipated to be, immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy, including patients with HIV, solid tumors, and renal transplants.”

For adults with functional immune systems, Shingrix is administered in two doses, 2-6 months apart. For immunocompromised individuals, the second dose can be given 1-2 months after the first dose.

During the same meeting, ACIP also voted to recommend pneumococcal vaccines for routine use in adults older than 65 and in adults aged 19-64 with chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic liver disease, and HIV, and disease risk factors like smoking and alcoholism. The recommendation only applies to those who have not received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose vaccination history is unknown. The recommendation states that qualifying adults should be vaccinated with the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Vaxneuvance followed by Pneumovax23, or a single dose of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Prevnar 20.

These ACIP recommendations will now be sent to the directors of the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for review and approval. If approved, the recommendations are considered finalized and will be published in a future Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices has voted to recommend Shingrix (zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted) for the prevention of shingles in immunodeficient or immunosuppressed adults aged 19 or older. The recommendation was approved Oct. 20 by a unanimous vote.

Shingles is a reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox. There are about 1 million cases of shingles in the United States every year, according to CDC estimates, and one in three Americans will develop shingles over their lifetime. While adults older than 50 are one of the most vulnerable groups to reinfection – with about 99% having been infected with VZV – a weakened immune system is another common risk factor.

The Food and Drug Administration originally approved Shingrix in 2017 for the prevention of shingles in adults over 50; in July of this year, the vaccine was approved for immunodeficient adults aged 18 or older. The approval and subsequent recommendation by ACIP were based on clinical studies of Shingrix in adults being treated for hematologic malignancies or those who had undergone an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

According to a press statement from the FDA, “Further safety and immunogenicity data were generated in adults who were, or were anticipated to be, immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy, including patients with HIV, solid tumors, and renal transplants.”

For adults with functional immune systems, Shingrix is administered in two doses, 2-6 months apart. For immunocompromised individuals, the second dose can be given 1-2 months after the first dose.

During the same meeting, ACIP also voted to recommend pneumococcal vaccines for routine use in adults older than 65 and in adults aged 19-64 with chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic liver disease, and HIV, and disease risk factors like smoking and alcoholism. The recommendation only applies to those who have not received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose vaccination history is unknown. The recommendation states that qualifying adults should be vaccinated with the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Vaxneuvance followed by Pneumovax23, or a single dose of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Prevnar 20.

These ACIP recommendations will now be sent to the directors of the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for review and approval. If approved, the recommendations are considered finalized and will be published in a future Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices has voted to recommend Shingrix (zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted) for the prevention of shingles in immunodeficient or immunosuppressed adults aged 19 or older. The recommendation was approved Oct. 20 by a unanimous vote.

Shingles is a reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox. There are about 1 million cases of shingles in the United States every year, according to CDC estimates, and one in three Americans will develop shingles over their lifetime. While adults older than 50 are one of the most vulnerable groups to reinfection – with about 99% having been infected with VZV – a weakened immune system is another common risk factor.

The Food and Drug Administration originally approved Shingrix in 2017 for the prevention of shingles in adults over 50; in July of this year, the vaccine was approved for immunodeficient adults aged 18 or older. The approval and subsequent recommendation by ACIP were based on clinical studies of Shingrix in adults being treated for hematologic malignancies or those who had undergone an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

According to a press statement from the FDA, “Further safety and immunogenicity data were generated in adults who were, or were anticipated to be, immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy, including patients with HIV, solid tumors, and renal transplants.”

For adults with functional immune systems, Shingrix is administered in two doses, 2-6 months apart. For immunocompromised individuals, the second dose can be given 1-2 months after the first dose.

During the same meeting, ACIP also voted to recommend pneumococcal vaccines for routine use in adults older than 65 and in adults aged 19-64 with chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic liver disease, and HIV, and disease risk factors like smoking and alcoholism. The recommendation only applies to those who have not received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose vaccination history is unknown. The recommendation states that qualifying adults should be vaccinated with the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Vaxneuvance followed by Pneumovax23, or a single dose of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Prevnar 20.

These ACIP recommendations will now be sent to the directors of the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for review and approval. If approved, the recommendations are considered finalized and will be published in a future Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

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

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

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

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

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

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.

The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems

The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

• Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
• Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
• Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
• Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
• Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.

Cancer patients at high risk of complications

As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
 

Right timing and location

The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.

It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.

Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.

Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.

“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”

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

Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.

The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems

The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

• Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
• Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
• Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
• Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
• Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.

Cancer patients at high risk of complications

As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
 

Right timing and location

The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.

It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.

Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.

Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.

“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”

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

Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.

The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems

The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

• Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
• Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
• Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
• Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
• Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.

Cancer patients at high risk of complications

As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
 

Right timing and location

The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.

It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.

Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.

Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.

“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”

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