Preventive Care

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

New questions about the landmark trial that launched the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor worldwide are being raised after an investigation uncovered more information about how the PLATO study was conducted.

Peter Doshi, PhD, senior editor at The BMJ, obtained primary records for the trial and unpublished data through a Freedom of Information Act request, and has detailed inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 trial originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The new investigation into the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is published in The BMJ.

The findings come as generic versions of ticagrelor (Brilinta) are expected to become available soon in the United States. Ticagrelor is the only P2Y12 inhibitor still under patent, and in 2022, the United States spent more than $750 million on it, according to the report.

PLATO, sponsored by ticagrelor manufacturer AstraZeneca, included more than 18,000 patients in 43 countries. Investigators reported that ticagrelor reduced deaths from vascular causes, heart attack, or stroke compared with clopidogrel (Plavix). However, in a subgroup analysis, among US patients, there were more deaths in the ticagrelor group, and AstraZeneca failed its first bid for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

Failed First Bid for FDA Approval

AstraZeneca resubmitted its application, which was met with objections by some FDA staff members, including medical officer Thomas Marciniak, who called the resubmission “the worst in my experience regarding completeness of the submissions and the sponsor responding completely and accurately to requests,” Doshi reports.

Despite the objections, the FDA in 2011 approved ticagrelor for acute coronary syndrome, kicking off intense controversy over the trial, as several other studies have failed to replicate PLATO’s positive results.

Doubts have grown about its apparent advantage over cheaper, off-patent P2Y12 inhibitors such as clopidogrel and prasugrel.

“Critics said it was noteworthy that ticagrelor failed in the US,” Doshi writes, “the only high enrolling country where sites were not monitored by the sponsor itself.” Doshi’s report points out that critics of the trial “highlight that AstraZeneca itself carried out the data monitoring for PLATO except for sites that were monitored by third party contract research organizations. In the four countries exclusively monitored by non-sponsor personnel—Georgia, Israel, Russia, and the US—ticagrelor fared worse.”

Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, said he was initially impressed by the trial results but became skeptical after noticing inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. He filed a complaint with the US District Court in the District of Columbia, suggesting that the cardiovascular events in the study “may have been manipulated.”

 

US Department of Justice Investigation

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation in 2013 and closed it in 2014 with no further action. Serebruany continues to publish critiques of the trial 15 years later but told The BMJ he has little hope that the questions will be resolved unless the DOJ re-engages with an investigation.

Doshi also points out discrepancies in the data reported. In the 2009 paper, published as an intent-to-treat analysis, investigators said there were 905 total deaths from any cause among all randomized patients. “An internal company report states, however, that 983 patients had died at this point. While 33 deaths occurred after the follow-up period, the NEJM tally still leaves out 45 deaths ‘discovered after withdrawal of consent,’” he reports.

The NEJM responded to Doshi that while it didn’t dispute the error in the number of deaths, it was uncertain about publishing a correction, citing new — not yet published — guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin told The BMJ that “for older manuscripts, correction is not necessarily appropriate unless there would be an effect on clinical practice.”

Doshi’s investigation includes an interview with Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, who said he was “increasingly disturbed by how trial after trial came out as being not dramatically positive in any way.” Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor’s recommendation in guidelines, according to the report.

AstraZeneca declined to be interviewed for the BMJ investigation, according to Doshi, and a spokesperson from the company told the journal by email that they have “nothing to add,” directing editors to its 2014 public statement after the DOJ’s investigation into PLATO. The BMJ said PLATO trial co-chairs Robert A. Harrington, MD, and Lars Wallentin, MD, did not respond to The BMJ’s requests for comment.

 

Will the Guidelines Be Changed Now?

“I know and have worked with Drs Wallentin and Harrington,” Bates told Medscape Medical News, “and find them to be honest, intelligent clinical scientists with the highest ethical standards who manage conflicts of interest as well as can be done in the clinical research arena, where industry support is required to develop new knowledge,” he said.

“If there is a concern that AstraZeneca was manipulating the dataset and FDA submission, that is an important issue,” Bates said. “The US paradox and the failure of any other antiplatelet trial to find a comparative mortality advantage are two unexplained issues with PLATO that provide good fodder for conspiracy theories. I agree with the NEJM that this trial is 15 years old and may not be worth readjudicating in the current treatment era.”

Other calls for revisiting guidelines have come after disappointing postlicensure studies have repeatedly demonstrated that ticagrelor has “similar efficacy to clopidogrel but with increased bleeding and [dyspnea],” Doshi reports.

“My concern is the marketing spin by AstraZeneca and the promotion of ticagrelor by six to eight ‘thought leaders’ consistently funded by AstraZeneca over the past 10 years,” said Bates. “They have flooded the literature with supportive subset and post hoc analyses, review articles, and ‘meta-analyses’ flawed by selection and intellectual bias, and public interviews that consistently discount the findings of the many subsequent randomized controlled trials that have not supported the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel or prasugrel.”

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

New questions about the landmark trial that launched the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor worldwide are being raised after an investigation uncovered more information about how the PLATO study was conducted.

Peter Doshi, PhD, senior editor at The BMJ, obtained primary records for the trial and unpublished data through a Freedom of Information Act request, and has detailed inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 trial originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The new investigation into the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is published in The BMJ.

The findings come as generic versions of ticagrelor (Brilinta) are expected to become available soon in the United States. Ticagrelor is the only P2Y12 inhibitor still under patent, and in 2022, the United States spent more than $750 million on it, according to the report.

PLATO, sponsored by ticagrelor manufacturer AstraZeneca, included more than 18,000 patients in 43 countries. Investigators reported that ticagrelor reduced deaths from vascular causes, heart attack, or stroke compared with clopidogrel (Plavix). However, in a subgroup analysis, among US patients, there were more deaths in the ticagrelor group, and AstraZeneca failed its first bid for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

Failed First Bid for FDA Approval

AstraZeneca resubmitted its application, which was met with objections by some FDA staff members, including medical officer Thomas Marciniak, who called the resubmission “the worst in my experience regarding completeness of the submissions and the sponsor responding completely and accurately to requests,” Doshi reports.

Despite the objections, the FDA in 2011 approved ticagrelor for acute coronary syndrome, kicking off intense controversy over the trial, as several other studies have failed to replicate PLATO’s positive results.

Doubts have grown about its apparent advantage over cheaper, off-patent P2Y12 inhibitors such as clopidogrel and prasugrel.

“Critics said it was noteworthy that ticagrelor failed in the US,” Doshi writes, “the only high enrolling country where sites were not monitored by the sponsor itself.” Doshi’s report points out that critics of the trial “highlight that AstraZeneca itself carried out the data monitoring for PLATO except for sites that were monitored by third party contract research organizations. In the four countries exclusively monitored by non-sponsor personnel—Georgia, Israel, Russia, and the US—ticagrelor fared worse.”

Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, said he was initially impressed by the trial results but became skeptical after noticing inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. He filed a complaint with the US District Court in the District of Columbia, suggesting that the cardiovascular events in the study “may have been manipulated.”

 

US Department of Justice Investigation

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation in 2013 and closed it in 2014 with no further action. Serebruany continues to publish critiques of the trial 15 years later but told The BMJ he has little hope that the questions will be resolved unless the DOJ re-engages with an investigation.

Doshi also points out discrepancies in the data reported. In the 2009 paper, published as an intent-to-treat analysis, investigators said there were 905 total deaths from any cause among all randomized patients. “An internal company report states, however, that 983 patients had died at this point. While 33 deaths occurred after the follow-up period, the NEJM tally still leaves out 45 deaths ‘discovered after withdrawal of consent,’” he reports.

The NEJM responded to Doshi that while it didn’t dispute the error in the number of deaths, it was uncertain about publishing a correction, citing new — not yet published — guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin told The BMJ that “for older manuscripts, correction is not necessarily appropriate unless there would be an effect on clinical practice.”

Doshi’s investigation includes an interview with Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, who said he was “increasingly disturbed by how trial after trial came out as being not dramatically positive in any way.” Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor’s recommendation in guidelines, according to the report.

AstraZeneca declined to be interviewed for the BMJ investigation, according to Doshi, and a spokesperson from the company told the journal by email that they have “nothing to add,” directing editors to its 2014 public statement after the DOJ’s investigation into PLATO. The BMJ said PLATO trial co-chairs Robert A. Harrington, MD, and Lars Wallentin, MD, did not respond to The BMJ’s requests for comment.

 

Will the Guidelines Be Changed Now?

“I know and have worked with Drs Wallentin and Harrington,” Bates told Medscape Medical News, “and find them to be honest, intelligent clinical scientists with the highest ethical standards who manage conflicts of interest as well as can be done in the clinical research arena, where industry support is required to develop new knowledge,” he said.

“If there is a concern that AstraZeneca was manipulating the dataset and FDA submission, that is an important issue,” Bates said. “The US paradox and the failure of any other antiplatelet trial to find a comparative mortality advantage are two unexplained issues with PLATO that provide good fodder for conspiracy theories. I agree with the NEJM that this trial is 15 years old and may not be worth readjudicating in the current treatment era.”

Other calls for revisiting guidelines have come after disappointing postlicensure studies have repeatedly demonstrated that ticagrelor has “similar efficacy to clopidogrel but with increased bleeding and [dyspnea],” Doshi reports.

“My concern is the marketing spin by AstraZeneca and the promotion of ticagrelor by six to eight ‘thought leaders’ consistently funded by AstraZeneca over the past 10 years,” said Bates. “They have flooded the literature with supportive subset and post hoc analyses, review articles, and ‘meta-analyses’ flawed by selection and intellectual bias, and public interviews that consistently discount the findings of the many subsequent randomized controlled trials that have not supported the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel or prasugrel.”

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

New questions about the landmark trial that launched the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor worldwide are being raised after an investigation uncovered more information about how the PLATO study was conducted.

Peter Doshi, PhD, senior editor at The BMJ, obtained primary records for the trial and unpublished data through a Freedom of Information Act request, and has detailed inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 trial originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The new investigation into the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is published in The BMJ.

The findings come as generic versions of ticagrelor (Brilinta) are expected to become available soon in the United States. Ticagrelor is the only P2Y12 inhibitor still under patent, and in 2022, the United States spent more than $750 million on it, according to the report.

PLATO, sponsored by ticagrelor manufacturer AstraZeneca, included more than 18,000 patients in 43 countries. Investigators reported that ticagrelor reduced deaths from vascular causes, heart attack, or stroke compared with clopidogrel (Plavix). However, in a subgroup analysis, among US patients, there were more deaths in the ticagrelor group, and AstraZeneca failed its first bid for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

Failed First Bid for FDA Approval

AstraZeneca resubmitted its application, which was met with objections by some FDA staff members, including medical officer Thomas Marciniak, who called the resubmission “the worst in my experience regarding completeness of the submissions and the sponsor responding completely and accurately to requests,” Doshi reports.

Despite the objections, the FDA in 2011 approved ticagrelor for acute coronary syndrome, kicking off intense controversy over the trial, as several other studies have failed to replicate PLATO’s positive results.

Doubts have grown about its apparent advantage over cheaper, off-patent P2Y12 inhibitors such as clopidogrel and prasugrel.

“Critics said it was noteworthy that ticagrelor failed in the US,” Doshi writes, “the only high enrolling country where sites were not monitored by the sponsor itself.” Doshi’s report points out that critics of the trial “highlight that AstraZeneca itself carried out the data monitoring for PLATO except for sites that were monitored by third party contract research organizations. In the four countries exclusively monitored by non-sponsor personnel—Georgia, Israel, Russia, and the US—ticagrelor fared worse.”

Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, said he was initially impressed by the trial results but became skeptical after noticing inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. He filed a complaint with the US District Court in the District of Columbia, suggesting that the cardiovascular events in the study “may have been manipulated.”

 

US Department of Justice Investigation

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation in 2013 and closed it in 2014 with no further action. Serebruany continues to publish critiques of the trial 15 years later but told The BMJ he has little hope that the questions will be resolved unless the DOJ re-engages with an investigation.

Doshi also points out discrepancies in the data reported. In the 2009 paper, published as an intent-to-treat analysis, investigators said there were 905 total deaths from any cause among all randomized patients. “An internal company report states, however, that 983 patients had died at this point. While 33 deaths occurred after the follow-up period, the NEJM tally still leaves out 45 deaths ‘discovered after withdrawal of consent,’” he reports.

The NEJM responded to Doshi that while it didn’t dispute the error in the number of deaths, it was uncertain about publishing a correction, citing new — not yet published — guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin told The BMJ that “for older manuscripts, correction is not necessarily appropriate unless there would be an effect on clinical practice.”

Doshi’s investigation includes an interview with Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, who said he was “increasingly disturbed by how trial after trial came out as being not dramatically positive in any way.” Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor’s recommendation in guidelines, according to the report.

AstraZeneca declined to be interviewed for the BMJ investigation, according to Doshi, and a spokesperson from the company told the journal by email that they have “nothing to add,” directing editors to its 2014 public statement after the DOJ’s investigation into PLATO. The BMJ said PLATO trial co-chairs Robert A. Harrington, MD, and Lars Wallentin, MD, did not respond to The BMJ’s requests for comment.

 

Will the Guidelines Be Changed Now?

“I know and have worked with Drs Wallentin and Harrington,” Bates told Medscape Medical News, “and find them to be honest, intelligent clinical scientists with the highest ethical standards who manage conflicts of interest as well as can be done in the clinical research arena, where industry support is required to develop new knowledge,” he said.

“If there is a concern that AstraZeneca was manipulating the dataset and FDA submission, that is an important issue,” Bates said. “The US paradox and the failure of any other antiplatelet trial to find a comparative mortality advantage are two unexplained issues with PLATO that provide good fodder for conspiracy theories. I agree with the NEJM that this trial is 15 years old and may not be worth readjudicating in the current treatment era.”

Other calls for revisiting guidelines have come after disappointing postlicensure studies have repeatedly demonstrated that ticagrelor has “similar efficacy to clopidogrel but with increased bleeding and [dyspnea],” Doshi reports.

“My concern is the marketing spin by AstraZeneca and the promotion of ticagrelor by six to eight ‘thought leaders’ consistently funded by AstraZeneca over the past 10 years,” said Bates. “They have flooded the literature with supportive subset and post hoc analyses, review articles, and ‘meta-analyses’ flawed by selection and intellectual bias, and public interviews that consistently discount the findings of the many subsequent randomized controlled trials that have not supported the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel or prasugrel.”

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

The question may seem simple: Could paying for weight loss medications — especially the pricey glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s), tirzepatide (Zepbound) and semaglutide (Wegovy) — be more cost-effective than paying for obesity care and the complications of obesity, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes?

It’s a question that’s getting an increased amount of attention.

And for good reason — more than two in five US adults have obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and costs to treat obesity, in 2019 dollars, approached $173 billion, including productivity losses. Adults with obesity have annual healthcare costs of $1861 more than those at healthier weights.

Among recent developments:

• A proposed new rule, announced on November 26 by the Biden administration, expands coverage of anti-obesity medication for Americans who have Medicare and Medicaid. If it takes effect, an estimated 3.4 million Medicare recipients and about 4 million adult Medicaid enrollees could get access to the medications.
• As Medicare coverage goes, private insurers often follow. Observers predict that if the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers anti-obesity drugs, more private employers may soon do the same. Recently, however, some private plans have done the opposite and dropped coverage of the pricey GLP-1s, which can cost $1000 a month or more out-of-pocket, citing excess costs for their company.
• Among the analyses about the value of weight loss on healthcare cost savings is a report published on December 5 in JAMA Network Open. Emory University experts looked at privately insured adults and adult Medicare beneficiaries with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 25 (classified as overweight). The conclusion: Projected annual savings from weight loss among US adults with obesity were substantial for both employee-based insurance and Medicare recipients.
• Besides helping obesity and obesity-related conditions, access to GLP-1s could have a favorable effect on productivity, others claim. That’s one focus of a 5-year partnership between the University of Manchester in England, and Eli Lilly and Company. Called SURMOUNT-REAL UK, the study will evaluate the effectiveness of tirzepatide in weight loss, diabetes prevention, and prevention of obesity-related complications in adults with obesity. It also aims to look at changes in health-related quality of life with weight loss and with changes in employment status and sick days.

CMS Proposal

In a statement announcing the proposal for Medicare and Medicaid to offer weight loss drugs, the White House noted that “tens of millions of Americans struggle with obesity” but that currently Medicare only covers the anti-obesity medications for certain conditions such as diabetes. The new proposal would expand that access to those with obesity. As of August, just 13 states cover GLP-1s in Medicaid programs, and North Carolina was the latest to do so.

Organizations advocating for health equity and recognition that obesity is a chronic disease came out in strong support of the proposal.

Kenneth E. Thorpe, PhD, a health policy expert at Emory University in Atlanta, who coauthored the recent analysis finding that weight loss offsets healthcare costs on an individual basis, told this news organization: “If finalized, this broad new coverage [by Medicare and Medicaid] would have a profound impact on the ability of Americans to access these novel medications that could significantly reduce obesity-related healthcare spending and improve overall health.”

The proposal “is modernizing the coverage of Medicare and Medicaid for obesity treatment,” agreed John Cawley, PhD, professor of economics and public policy at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who has researched the direct medical costs of obesity in the United States. “In this HHS rule, they talk about the scientific and medical consensus that having obesity is a chronic condition.”

The proposal requires a 60-day comment period that ends January 27, 2025, taking the timeline into the beginning of the Trump administration. Cawley and others pointed out that Trump’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, has been an outspoken opponent of the anti-obesity medicines, suggesting instead that Americans simply eat better.

 

Expert Analyses: Emory, Cornell, Southern California

So would paying for the pricey GLP-1s be smart in the long term? Analyses don’t agree.

Weight loss among those with obesity produces healthcare cost savings, said Thorpe and Peter Joski, MSPH, an associate research professor at Emory University. The two compared annual healthcare spending among privately insured adults and adult Medicare beneficiaries with a BMI of ≥ 25, using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey — Household Component from April 1 to June 20, 2024.

The researchers looked at 3774 adults insured with Medicare and 13,435 with employer-sponsored insurance. Overall, those with private insurance with a weight loss of 5% spent an estimated average of $670 less on healthcare. Those with a weight loss of 25% spent an estimated $2849 less on healthcare. Among those with Medicare who had one or more comorbidities, a 5% weight loss reduced spending by $1262 on average; a 25% loss reduced it by an estimated $5442, or 31%.

Thorpe called the savings substantial. In an email interview, Thorpe said, “So yes, weight loss for people living with obesity does lower healthcare costs, as my research shows, but it also lowers other costs as well.”

These include costs associated with disability, workers’ compensation, presenteeism/absenteeism, and everyday costs, he said. He contends that “those other costs should factor into decisions about preventing and treating obesity of payors and policymakers and enhance the case for cost-effectiveness of treating obesity.”

Other research suggests it’s important to target the use of the anti-obesity medications to the BMI range that would get the most benefit. For people just barely above the BMI threshold of 30, no cost savings are expected, Cawley found in his research. But he has found substantial cost reduction if the BMI was 35-40.

However, as Cawley pointed out, as the drugs get cheaper and more options become available, the entire scenario is expected to shift.

 

The Congressional Budget Office View

In October, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report, “How Would Authorizing Medicare to Cover Anti-Obesity Medications Affect the Federal Budget?” Among the conclusions: Covering the anti-obesity medications would increase federal spending, on net, by about $35 billion from 2026 to 2034. Total direct federal costs of covering the medication would increase from $1.6 billion in 2026 to $7.1 billion in 2034. And it said total savings from improved health of the beneficiaries would be small, less than $50 million in 2026 and rising to $1 billion in 2034.

Covering the medications would cost $5600 per user in 2026, then down to $4300 in 2034. The offset of savings per user would be about $50 in 2026, then $650 in 2034.

 

Expert Analysis: USC Schaeffer Center

“The costs offsets come over time,” said Alison Sexton Ward, PhD, an economist at the University of Southern California’s Leonard D. Schaeffer Center, Los Angeles, and an expert on the topic. “If we look at the average annual medical cost over a lifetime, we do see cost offsets there.”

However, treating obesity means people will live longer, “and living longer costs more,” she said.

She took issue with some of the calculations in the CBO report, such as not considering the effect of semaglutide’s patent expiring in 2033.

In a white paper published in April 2023, Sexton Ward and her coauthors modeled potential social benefits and medical cost offsets from granting access to the newer weight loss drugs. The cumulative social benefits of providing coverage over the next decade would reach nearly $1 trillion, they said. Benefits would increase if private insurance expanded coverage. “In the first 10 years alone, covering weight loss therapies would save Medicare $175 billion-$245 billion, depending on whether private insurance joins Medicare in providing coverage for younger populations.”

While much focus is on Medicare coverage, Sexton Ward and others pointed out the need to expand coverage to younger ages, with the aim of preventing or delaying obesity-related complications.

 

Lilly UK Trial

A spokesperson for Lilly declined to comment further on the UK study, explaining that the study was just launching.

Besides tracking weight loss, researchers will evaluate the effect of the weight loss on sick days from work and employment. Obesity is shown to affect a person’s ability to work, leading to more absenteeism, so treating the obesity may improve productivity.

 

Beyond Health: The Value of Weight Loss

“I love the idea of studying whether access to obesity medications helps people stay employed and do their job,” said Cristy Gallagher, associate director of Research and Policy at STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. The alliance includes more than 50 organizations advocating for adult obesity treatment.

“One of our big arguments is [that] access to care, and to obesity care, will also help other conditions — comorbidities like heart disease and diabetes.”

However, access to the anti-obesity medications, by itself, is not enough, Gallagher said. Other components, such as intensive behavioral therapy and guidance about diet and exercise, are needed, she said. So, too, for those who need it, is access to bariatric surgery, she said. And medication access should include other options besides the GLP-1s, she said. “Not every medication is right for everybody.”

Cawley, Gallagher, Thorpe, and Sexton Ward had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The question may seem simple: Could paying for weight loss medications — especially the pricey glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s), tirzepatide (Zepbound) and semaglutide (Wegovy) — be more cost-effective than paying for obesity care and the complications of obesity, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes?

It’s a question that’s getting an increased amount of attention.

And for good reason — more than two in five US adults have obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and costs to treat obesity, in 2019 dollars, approached $173 billion, including productivity losses. Adults with obesity have annual healthcare costs of $1861 more than those at healthier weights.

Among recent developments:

• A proposed new rule, announced on November 26 by the Biden administration, expands coverage of anti-obesity medication for Americans who have Medicare and Medicaid. If it takes effect, an estimated 3.4 million Medicare recipients and about 4 million adult Medicaid enrollees could get access to the medications.
• As Medicare coverage goes, private insurers often follow. Observers predict that if the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers anti-obesity drugs, more private employers may soon do the same. Recently, however, some private plans have done the opposite and dropped coverage of the pricey GLP-1s, which can cost $1000 a month or more out-of-pocket, citing excess costs for their company.
• Among the analyses about the value of weight loss on healthcare cost savings is a report published on December 5 in JAMA Network Open. Emory University experts looked at privately insured adults and adult Medicare beneficiaries with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 25 (classified as overweight). The conclusion: Projected annual savings from weight loss among US adults with obesity were substantial for both employee-based insurance and Medicare recipients.
• Besides helping obesity and obesity-related conditions, access to GLP-1s could have a favorable effect on productivity, others claim. That’s one focus of a 5-year partnership between the University of Manchester in England, and Eli Lilly and Company. Called SURMOUNT-REAL UK, the study will evaluate the effectiveness of tirzepatide in weight loss, diabetes prevention, and prevention of obesity-related complications in adults with obesity. It also aims to look at changes in health-related quality of life with weight loss and with changes in employment status and sick days.

CMS Proposal

In a statement announcing the proposal for Medicare and Medicaid to offer weight loss drugs, the White House noted that “tens of millions of Americans struggle with obesity” but that currently Medicare only covers the anti-obesity medications for certain conditions such as diabetes. The new proposal would expand that access to those with obesity. As of August, just 13 states cover GLP-1s in Medicaid programs, and North Carolina was the latest to do so.

Organizations advocating for health equity and recognition that obesity is a chronic disease came out in strong support of the proposal.

Kenneth E. Thorpe, PhD, a health policy expert at Emory University in Atlanta, who coauthored the recent analysis finding that weight loss offsets healthcare costs on an individual basis, told this news organization: “If finalized, this broad new coverage [by Medicare and Medicaid] would have a profound impact on the ability of Americans to access these novel medications that could significantly reduce obesity-related healthcare spending and improve overall health.”

The proposal “is modernizing the coverage of Medicare and Medicaid for obesity treatment,” agreed John Cawley, PhD, professor of economics and public policy at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who has researched the direct medical costs of obesity in the United States. “In this HHS rule, they talk about the scientific and medical consensus that having obesity is a chronic condition.”

The proposal requires a 60-day comment period that ends January 27, 2025, taking the timeline into the beginning of the Trump administration. Cawley and others pointed out that Trump’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, has been an outspoken opponent of the anti-obesity medicines, suggesting instead that Americans simply eat better.

 

Expert Analyses: Emory, Cornell, Southern California

So would paying for the pricey GLP-1s be smart in the long term? Analyses don’t agree.

Weight loss among those with obesity produces healthcare cost savings, said Thorpe and Peter Joski, MSPH, an associate research professor at Emory University. The two compared annual healthcare spending among privately insured adults and adult Medicare beneficiaries with a BMI of ≥ 25, using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey — Household Component from April 1 to June 20, 2024.

The researchers looked at 3774 adults insured with Medicare and 13,435 with employer-sponsored insurance. Overall, those with private insurance with a weight loss of 5% spent an estimated average of $670 less on healthcare. Those with a weight loss of 25% spent an estimated $2849 less on healthcare. Among those with Medicare who had one or more comorbidities, a 5% weight loss reduced spending by $1262 on average; a 25% loss reduced it by an estimated $5442, or 31%.

Thorpe called the savings substantial. In an email interview, Thorpe said, “So yes, weight loss for people living with obesity does lower healthcare costs, as my research shows, but it also lowers other costs as well.”

These include costs associated with disability, workers’ compensation, presenteeism/absenteeism, and everyday costs, he said. He contends that “those other costs should factor into decisions about preventing and treating obesity of payors and policymakers and enhance the case for cost-effectiveness of treating obesity.”

Other research suggests it’s important to target the use of the anti-obesity medications to the BMI range that would get the most benefit. For people just barely above the BMI threshold of 30, no cost savings are expected, Cawley found in his research. But he has found substantial cost reduction if the BMI was 35-40.

However, as Cawley pointed out, as the drugs get cheaper and more options become available, the entire scenario is expected to shift.

 

The Congressional Budget Office View

In October, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report, “How Would Authorizing Medicare to Cover Anti-Obesity Medications Affect the Federal Budget?” Among the conclusions: Covering the anti-obesity medications would increase federal spending, on net, by about $35 billion from 2026 to 2034. Total direct federal costs of covering the medication would increase from $1.6 billion in 2026 to $7.1 billion in 2034. And it said total savings from improved health of the beneficiaries would be small, less than $50 million in 2026 and rising to $1 billion in 2034.

Covering the medications would cost $5600 per user in 2026, then down to $4300 in 2034. The offset of savings per user would be about $50 in 2026, then $650 in 2034.

 

Expert Analysis: USC Schaeffer Center

“The costs offsets come over time,” said Alison Sexton Ward, PhD, an economist at the University of Southern California’s Leonard D. Schaeffer Center, Los Angeles, and an expert on the topic. “If we look at the average annual medical cost over a lifetime, we do see cost offsets there.”

However, treating obesity means people will live longer, “and living longer costs more,” she said.

She took issue with some of the calculations in the CBO report, such as not considering the effect of semaglutide’s patent expiring in 2033.

In a white paper published in April 2023, Sexton Ward and her coauthors modeled potential social benefits and medical cost offsets from granting access to the newer weight loss drugs. The cumulative social benefits of providing coverage over the next decade would reach nearly $1 trillion, they said. Benefits would increase if private insurance expanded coverage. “In the first 10 years alone, covering weight loss therapies would save Medicare $175 billion-$245 billion, depending on whether private insurance joins Medicare in providing coverage for younger populations.”

While much focus is on Medicare coverage, Sexton Ward and others pointed out the need to expand coverage to younger ages, with the aim of preventing or delaying obesity-related complications.

 

Lilly UK Trial

A spokesperson for Lilly declined to comment further on the UK study, explaining that the study was just launching.

Besides tracking weight loss, researchers will evaluate the effect of the weight loss on sick days from work and employment. Obesity is shown to affect a person’s ability to work, leading to more absenteeism, so treating the obesity may improve productivity.

 

Beyond Health: The Value of Weight Loss

“I love the idea of studying whether access to obesity medications helps people stay employed and do their job,” said Cristy Gallagher, associate director of Research and Policy at STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. The alliance includes more than 50 organizations advocating for adult obesity treatment.

“One of our big arguments is [that] access to care, and to obesity care, will also help other conditions — comorbidities like heart disease and diabetes.”

However, access to the anti-obesity medications, by itself, is not enough, Gallagher said. Other components, such as intensive behavioral therapy and guidance about diet and exercise, are needed, she said. So, too, for those who need it, is access to bariatric surgery, she said. And medication access should include other options besides the GLP-1s, she said. “Not every medication is right for everybody.”

Cawley, Gallagher, Thorpe, and Sexton Ward had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The question may seem simple: Could paying for weight loss medications — especially the pricey glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s), tirzepatide (Zepbound) and semaglutide (Wegovy) — be more cost-effective than paying for obesity care and the complications of obesity, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes?

It’s a question that’s getting an increased amount of attention.

And for good reason — more than two in five US adults have obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and costs to treat obesity, in 2019 dollars, approached $173 billion, including productivity losses. Adults with obesity have annual healthcare costs of $1861 more than those at healthier weights.

Among recent developments:

• A proposed new rule, announced on November 26 by the Biden administration, expands coverage of anti-obesity medication for Americans who have Medicare and Medicaid. If it takes effect, an estimated 3.4 million Medicare recipients and about 4 million adult Medicaid enrollees could get access to the medications.
• As Medicare coverage goes, private insurers often follow. Observers predict that if the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers anti-obesity drugs, more private employers may soon do the same. Recently, however, some private plans have done the opposite and dropped coverage of the pricey GLP-1s, which can cost $1000 a month or more out-of-pocket, citing excess costs for their company.
• Among the analyses about the value of weight loss on healthcare cost savings is a report published on December 5 in JAMA Network Open. Emory University experts looked at privately insured adults and adult Medicare beneficiaries with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 25 (classified as overweight). The conclusion: Projected annual savings from weight loss among US adults with obesity were substantial for both employee-based insurance and Medicare recipients.
• Besides helping obesity and obesity-related conditions, access to GLP-1s could have a favorable effect on productivity, others claim. That’s one focus of a 5-year partnership between the University of Manchester in England, and Eli Lilly and Company. Called SURMOUNT-REAL UK, the study will evaluate the effectiveness of tirzepatide in weight loss, diabetes prevention, and prevention of obesity-related complications in adults with obesity. It also aims to look at changes in health-related quality of life with weight loss and with changes in employment status and sick days.

CMS Proposal

In a statement announcing the proposal for Medicare and Medicaid to offer weight loss drugs, the White House noted that “tens of millions of Americans struggle with obesity” but that currently Medicare only covers the anti-obesity medications for certain conditions such as diabetes. The new proposal would expand that access to those with obesity. As of August, just 13 states cover GLP-1s in Medicaid programs, and North Carolina was the latest to do so.

Organizations advocating for health equity and recognition that obesity is a chronic disease came out in strong support of the proposal.

Kenneth E. Thorpe, PhD, a health policy expert at Emory University in Atlanta, who coauthored the recent analysis finding that weight loss offsets healthcare costs on an individual basis, told this news organization: “If finalized, this broad new coverage [by Medicare and Medicaid] would have a profound impact on the ability of Americans to access these novel medications that could significantly reduce obesity-related healthcare spending and improve overall health.”

The proposal “is modernizing the coverage of Medicare and Medicaid for obesity treatment,” agreed John Cawley, PhD, professor of economics and public policy at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who has researched the direct medical costs of obesity in the United States. “In this HHS rule, they talk about the scientific and medical consensus that having obesity is a chronic condition.”

The proposal requires a 60-day comment period that ends January 27, 2025, taking the timeline into the beginning of the Trump administration. Cawley and others pointed out that Trump’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, has been an outspoken opponent of the anti-obesity medicines, suggesting instead that Americans simply eat better.

 

Expert Analyses: Emory, Cornell, Southern California

So would paying for the pricey GLP-1s be smart in the long term? Analyses don’t agree.

Weight loss among those with obesity produces healthcare cost savings, said Thorpe and Peter Joski, MSPH, an associate research professor at Emory University. The two compared annual healthcare spending among privately insured adults and adult Medicare beneficiaries with a BMI of ≥ 25, using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey — Household Component from April 1 to June 20, 2024.

The researchers looked at 3774 adults insured with Medicare and 13,435 with employer-sponsored insurance. Overall, those with private insurance with a weight loss of 5% spent an estimated average of $670 less on healthcare. Those with a weight loss of 25% spent an estimated $2849 less on healthcare. Among those with Medicare who had one or more comorbidities, a 5% weight loss reduced spending by $1262 on average; a 25% loss reduced it by an estimated $5442, or 31%.

Thorpe called the savings substantial. In an email interview, Thorpe said, “So yes, weight loss for people living with obesity does lower healthcare costs, as my research shows, but it also lowers other costs as well.”

These include costs associated with disability, workers’ compensation, presenteeism/absenteeism, and everyday costs, he said. He contends that “those other costs should factor into decisions about preventing and treating obesity of payors and policymakers and enhance the case for cost-effectiveness of treating obesity.”

Other research suggests it’s important to target the use of the anti-obesity medications to the BMI range that would get the most benefit. For people just barely above the BMI threshold of 30, no cost savings are expected, Cawley found in his research. But he has found substantial cost reduction if the BMI was 35-40.

However, as Cawley pointed out, as the drugs get cheaper and more options become available, the entire scenario is expected to shift.

 

The Congressional Budget Office View

In October, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report, “How Would Authorizing Medicare to Cover Anti-Obesity Medications Affect the Federal Budget?” Among the conclusions: Covering the anti-obesity medications would increase federal spending, on net, by about $35 billion from 2026 to 2034. Total direct federal costs of covering the medication would increase from $1.6 billion in 2026 to $7.1 billion in 2034. And it said total savings from improved health of the beneficiaries would be small, less than $50 million in 2026 and rising to $1 billion in 2034.

Covering the medications would cost $5600 per user in 2026, then down to $4300 in 2034. The offset of savings per user would be about $50 in 2026, then $650 in 2034.

 

Expert Analysis: USC Schaeffer Center

“The costs offsets come over time,” said Alison Sexton Ward, PhD, an economist at the University of Southern California’s Leonard D. Schaeffer Center, Los Angeles, and an expert on the topic. “If we look at the average annual medical cost over a lifetime, we do see cost offsets there.”

However, treating obesity means people will live longer, “and living longer costs more,” she said.

She took issue with some of the calculations in the CBO report, such as not considering the effect of semaglutide’s patent expiring in 2033.

In a white paper published in April 2023, Sexton Ward and her coauthors modeled potential social benefits and medical cost offsets from granting access to the newer weight loss drugs. The cumulative social benefits of providing coverage over the next decade would reach nearly $1 trillion, they said. Benefits would increase if private insurance expanded coverage. “In the first 10 years alone, covering weight loss therapies would save Medicare $175 billion-$245 billion, depending on whether private insurance joins Medicare in providing coverage for younger populations.”

While much focus is on Medicare coverage, Sexton Ward and others pointed out the need to expand coverage to younger ages, with the aim of preventing or delaying obesity-related complications.

 

Lilly UK Trial

A spokesperson for Lilly declined to comment further on the UK study, explaining that the study was just launching.

Besides tracking weight loss, researchers will evaluate the effect of the weight loss on sick days from work and employment. Obesity is shown to affect a person’s ability to work, leading to more absenteeism, so treating the obesity may improve productivity.

 

Beyond Health: The Value of Weight Loss

“I love the idea of studying whether access to obesity medications helps people stay employed and do their job,” said Cristy Gallagher, associate director of Research and Policy at STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. The alliance includes more than 50 organizations advocating for adult obesity treatment.

“One of our big arguments is [that] access to care, and to obesity care, will also help other conditions — comorbidities like heart disease and diabetes.”

However, access to the anti-obesity medications, by itself, is not enough, Gallagher said. Other components, such as intensive behavioral therapy and guidance about diet and exercise, are needed, she said. So, too, for those who need it, is access to bariatric surgery, she said. And medication access should include other options besides the GLP-1s, she said. “Not every medication is right for everybody.”

Cawley, Gallagher, Thorpe, and Sexton Ward had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at University of Oxford. As I become, sadly, older, I’ve become much more interested in the concept of cancer prevention than cancer treatment. Of course, I’m still a practicing cancer physician and researcher. That’s my daily bread and butter. But prevention is important. 

There’s a really interesting article in the Christmas edition of The BMJ. This is an opportunity for us to take good science, but lighthearted science, to titillate and amuse our Christmas readers. This is a nice article from the States led by Joshua Wallach. As I say, this brings together good science in a sometimes absurd setting. I’ll read its title: “Association of Health Benefits and Harms of Christmas Dessert Ingredients in Recipes From The Great British Bake Off: Umbrella Review of Umbrella Reviews of Meta-analyses of Observational Studies.”

It’s obviously a very strong statistical underpinning from this group from Yale, predominantly — a half-decent university, as those of us from Oxford would have to admit. They used The Great British Bake Off website, Embase, Medline, and Scopus. They looked at the whole host of umbrella reviews and so on. 

They were interested in looking at the relative balance of dangerous and protective ingredients that were recommended in Christmas desserts on this immensely popular television show called The Great British Bake Off. Some of you have watched it and have enjoyed watching the trials and tribulations of the various contestants. 

They looked at 48 recipes for Christmas desserts, including cakes, biscuits, pastries, puddings, and conventional desserts. Of all these, there were 178 unique ingredients. Literature research then parsed whether these ingredients were good for you or bad for you. 

It was very interesting that, when they put the summary together, the umbrella review of umbrella reviews of meta-analyses compressed together, it was good news for us all. Recipes for Christmas desserts, particularly from The Great British Bake Off — which should be enormously proud of this — tend to use ingredient groups that are associated with reductions rather than increases in the risk for disease. Hurrah!

This means that, clearly, Christmas is a time in which those of us who can, tend to overindulge in food. The granddad falling asleep with a full tummy, sitting with the family in front of a hot fire — all of us can remember and imagine all of that. 

Perhaps the most important takeaway point from this observationally, critically important study is that, yes — at Christmas time, enjoy the dessert. You can have your cake and eat it, too. You heard it here. It’s philosophically true and statistically proven: You can have your cake and eat it. 

Thanks for listening. I’d be very interested in your own recipes, and whether we think that the American Thanksgiving desserts correlate with British Christmas desserts in some way and are beneficial to your health. 

Have a look at this article that is cleverly, wittily written. As always, Medscapers, for the time being, thanks for listening. Over and out. 

 

Dr Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant); Genomic Health; Merck Serono, Roche. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at University of Oxford. As I become, sadly, older, I’ve become much more interested in the concept of cancer prevention than cancer treatment. Of course, I’m still a practicing cancer physician and researcher. That’s my daily bread and butter. But prevention is important. 

There’s a really interesting article in the Christmas edition of The BMJ. This is an opportunity for us to take good science, but lighthearted science, to titillate and amuse our Christmas readers. This is a nice article from the States led by Joshua Wallach. As I say, this brings together good science in a sometimes absurd setting. I’ll read its title: “Association of Health Benefits and Harms of Christmas Dessert Ingredients in Recipes From The Great British Bake Off: Umbrella Review of Umbrella Reviews of Meta-analyses of Observational Studies.”

It’s obviously a very strong statistical underpinning from this group from Yale, predominantly — a half-decent university, as those of us from Oxford would have to admit. They used The Great British Bake Off website, Embase, Medline, and Scopus. They looked at the whole host of umbrella reviews and so on. 

They were interested in looking at the relative balance of dangerous and protective ingredients that were recommended in Christmas desserts on this immensely popular television show called The Great British Bake Off. Some of you have watched it and have enjoyed watching the trials and tribulations of the various contestants. 

They looked at 48 recipes for Christmas desserts, including cakes, biscuits, pastries, puddings, and conventional desserts. Of all these, there were 178 unique ingredients. Literature research then parsed whether these ingredients were good for you or bad for you. 

It was very interesting that, when they put the summary together, the umbrella review of umbrella reviews of meta-analyses compressed together, it was good news for us all. Recipes for Christmas desserts, particularly from The Great British Bake Off — which should be enormously proud of this — tend to use ingredient groups that are associated with reductions rather than increases in the risk for disease. Hurrah!

This means that, clearly, Christmas is a time in which those of us who can, tend to overindulge in food. The granddad falling asleep with a full tummy, sitting with the family in front of a hot fire — all of us can remember and imagine all of that. 

Perhaps the most important takeaway point from this observationally, critically important study is that, yes — at Christmas time, enjoy the dessert. You can have your cake and eat it, too. You heard it here. It’s philosophically true and statistically proven: You can have your cake and eat it. 

Thanks for listening. I’d be very interested in your own recipes, and whether we think that the American Thanksgiving desserts correlate with British Christmas desserts in some way and are beneficial to your health. 

Have a look at this article that is cleverly, wittily written. As always, Medscapers, for the time being, thanks for listening. Over and out. 

 

Dr Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant); Genomic Health; Merck Serono, Roche. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at University of Oxford. As I become, sadly, older, I’ve become much more interested in the concept of cancer prevention than cancer treatment. Of course, I’m still a practicing cancer physician and researcher. That’s my daily bread and butter. But prevention is important. 

There’s a really interesting article in the Christmas edition of The BMJ. This is an opportunity for us to take good science, but lighthearted science, to titillate and amuse our Christmas readers. This is a nice article from the States led by Joshua Wallach. As I say, this brings together good science in a sometimes absurd setting. I’ll read its title: “Association of Health Benefits and Harms of Christmas Dessert Ingredients in Recipes From The Great British Bake Off: Umbrella Review of Umbrella Reviews of Meta-analyses of Observational Studies.”

It’s obviously a very strong statistical underpinning from this group from Yale, predominantly — a half-decent university, as those of us from Oxford would have to admit. They used The Great British Bake Off website, Embase, Medline, and Scopus. They looked at the whole host of umbrella reviews and so on. 

They were interested in looking at the relative balance of dangerous and protective ingredients that were recommended in Christmas desserts on this immensely popular television show called The Great British Bake Off. Some of you have watched it and have enjoyed watching the trials and tribulations of the various contestants. 

They looked at 48 recipes for Christmas desserts, including cakes, biscuits, pastries, puddings, and conventional desserts. Of all these, there were 178 unique ingredients. Literature research then parsed whether these ingredients were good for you or bad for you. 

It was very interesting that, when they put the summary together, the umbrella review of umbrella reviews of meta-analyses compressed together, it was good news for us all. Recipes for Christmas desserts, particularly from The Great British Bake Off — which should be enormously proud of this — tend to use ingredient groups that are associated with reductions rather than increases in the risk for disease. Hurrah!

This means that, clearly, Christmas is a time in which those of us who can, tend to overindulge in food. The granddad falling asleep with a full tummy, sitting with the family in front of a hot fire — all of us can remember and imagine all of that. 

Perhaps the most important takeaway point from this observationally, critically important study is that, yes — at Christmas time, enjoy the dessert. You can have your cake and eat it, too. You heard it here. It’s philosophically true and statistically proven: You can have your cake and eat it. 

Thanks for listening. I’d be very interested in your own recipes, and whether we think that the American Thanksgiving desserts correlate with British Christmas desserts in some way and are beneficial to your health. 

Have a look at this article that is cleverly, wittily written. As always, Medscapers, for the time being, thanks for listening. Over and out. 

 

Dr Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant); Genomic Health; Merck Serono, Roche. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with BRCA mutations and a history of early-onset breast cancer benefited from risk-reducing surgeries, according to new data presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

Having a risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with significantly improved overall survival and disease-free survival in BRCA-mutation carriers who had been diagnosed with a first breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years.

“This global study provides the first evidence that risk-reducing surgeries improve survival outcomes among young BRCA-mutation carriers with a prior history of early-onset breast cancer,” study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, oncologist with the University of Genova–IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genoa, Italy, said in a statement from the SABCS, where he presented the findings. “Considering the unique traits and needs of this younger population, and their high risk for secondary malignancies, it is critical to understand how risk-reducing surgeries affect patient outcomes, so that the risks and benefits of these procedures can be carefully weighed.”

“We hope these findings may help to improve the counseling on cancer-risk management strategies for BRCA carriers with young-onset of breast cancer below the age of 40 years,” Lambertini added during a press briefing. 

Various risk-reducing strategies, including risk-reducing surgeries, are recommended for BRCA-mutation carriers without a prior history of cancer, but the impact of these surgeries among younger populations with a history of early-onset breast cancer has been less clear.

The new findings come from the BRCA BCY Collaboration, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 5290 patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations who were diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer at ≤ 40 years. The risk-reducing mastectomy analysis included 2910 patients (55%) who underwent the surgery less than 1 year from diagnosis and 2380 who opted not to have the surgery. 

Primary endpoint was overall survival, and disease-free survival and breast cancer-free interval were secondary endpoints. Overall survival models were adjusted for the development of distant recurrences or second primary malignancies.

During median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy had a 35% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.65) as well as a significant improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.58) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.55). The improved outcomes were seen in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, Lambertini reported. 

The risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy analysis included 2782 patients who underwent this surgery a median of 3 years from diagnosis and 2508 who did not. 

During median follow up of 4.9 years, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 42% lower risk for death (aHR, 0.58) as well as an improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.68) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.65).

For risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was an interaction based on breast cancer subtype and BRCA mutation.

“Specifically, the benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was greater for patients with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and for those with triple-negative disease, as compared to those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants or luminal disease,” Lambertini reported.

Overall survival results were similar in patients who underwent one or both surgeries.

Briefing moderator Kate Lathrop, MD, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, noted that this study provides valuable information for counseling younger patients. Having datasets like this helps us give patients “potentially our best estimate of the amount of reduction of risk you could have by having the surgery now.”

In an interview, Freya Schnabel, MD, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York City, emphasized the importance of early, well-informed decision-making upfront at the time of diagnosis in this patient population.

The benefit of “risk-reducing oophorectomy cannot be overemphasized, even in the presence of a known breast cancer because, as my colleagues and I say — we don’t want to cure their breast cancer and then have them die of ovarian cancer,” said Schnabel, who was not involved in the study.

In terms of prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, Schnabel noted that BRCA-mutation carriers have a “very high” risk for a second primary breast cancer. In her experience, “that’s what drives patients frequently at the time of diagnosis to have bilateral mastectomy because who wants to go through this more than once?” 

This is especially true for BRCA1 carriers who have a higher risk for triple-negative breast cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis and is harder to treat, Schnabel said. 

“For these patients, having surgery prevents the patient from getting into a situation where their second primary tumor winds up being biologically more aggressive and then affects their survival,” Schnabel said.

The study was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the European Society for Medical Oncology. Lambertini reported advisory roles for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini. Lathrop consults for TeraSera Pharmaceuticals. Schnabel had no relevant disclosures.

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

Patients with BRCA mutations and a history of early-onset breast cancer benefited from risk-reducing surgeries, according to new data presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

Having a risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with significantly improved overall survival and disease-free survival in BRCA-mutation carriers who had been diagnosed with a first breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years.

“This global study provides the first evidence that risk-reducing surgeries improve survival outcomes among young BRCA-mutation carriers with a prior history of early-onset breast cancer,” study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, oncologist with the University of Genova–IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genoa, Italy, said in a statement from the SABCS, where he presented the findings. “Considering the unique traits and needs of this younger population, and their high risk for secondary malignancies, it is critical to understand how risk-reducing surgeries affect patient outcomes, so that the risks and benefits of these procedures can be carefully weighed.”

“We hope these findings may help to improve the counseling on cancer-risk management strategies for BRCA carriers with young-onset of breast cancer below the age of 40 years,” Lambertini added during a press briefing. 

Various risk-reducing strategies, including risk-reducing surgeries, are recommended for BRCA-mutation carriers without a prior history of cancer, but the impact of these surgeries among younger populations with a history of early-onset breast cancer has been less clear.

The new findings come from the BRCA BCY Collaboration, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 5290 patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations who were diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer at ≤ 40 years. The risk-reducing mastectomy analysis included 2910 patients (55%) who underwent the surgery less than 1 year from diagnosis and 2380 who opted not to have the surgery. 

Primary endpoint was overall survival, and disease-free survival and breast cancer-free interval were secondary endpoints. Overall survival models were adjusted for the development of distant recurrences or second primary malignancies.

During median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy had a 35% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.65) as well as a significant improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.58) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.55). The improved outcomes were seen in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, Lambertini reported. 

The risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy analysis included 2782 patients who underwent this surgery a median of 3 years from diagnosis and 2508 who did not. 

During median follow up of 4.9 years, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 42% lower risk for death (aHR, 0.58) as well as an improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.68) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.65).

For risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was an interaction based on breast cancer subtype and BRCA mutation.

“Specifically, the benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was greater for patients with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and for those with triple-negative disease, as compared to those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants or luminal disease,” Lambertini reported.

Overall survival results were similar in patients who underwent one or both surgeries.

Briefing moderator Kate Lathrop, MD, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, noted that this study provides valuable information for counseling younger patients. Having datasets like this helps us give patients “potentially our best estimate of the amount of reduction of risk you could have by having the surgery now.”

In an interview, Freya Schnabel, MD, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York City, emphasized the importance of early, well-informed decision-making upfront at the time of diagnosis in this patient population.

The benefit of “risk-reducing oophorectomy cannot be overemphasized, even in the presence of a known breast cancer because, as my colleagues and I say — we don’t want to cure their breast cancer and then have them die of ovarian cancer,” said Schnabel, who was not involved in the study.

In terms of prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, Schnabel noted that BRCA-mutation carriers have a “very high” risk for a second primary breast cancer. In her experience, “that’s what drives patients frequently at the time of diagnosis to have bilateral mastectomy because who wants to go through this more than once?” 

This is especially true for BRCA1 carriers who have a higher risk for triple-negative breast cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis and is harder to treat, Schnabel said. 

“For these patients, having surgery prevents the patient from getting into a situation where their second primary tumor winds up being biologically more aggressive and then affects their survival,” Schnabel said.

The study was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the European Society for Medical Oncology. Lambertini reported advisory roles for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini. Lathrop consults for TeraSera Pharmaceuticals. Schnabel had no relevant disclosures.

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

Patients with BRCA mutations and a history of early-onset breast cancer benefited from risk-reducing surgeries, according to new data presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

Having a risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with significantly improved overall survival and disease-free survival in BRCA-mutation carriers who had been diagnosed with a first breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years.

“This global study provides the first evidence that risk-reducing surgeries improve survival outcomes among young BRCA-mutation carriers with a prior history of early-onset breast cancer,” study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, oncologist with the University of Genova–IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genoa, Italy, said in a statement from the SABCS, where he presented the findings. “Considering the unique traits and needs of this younger population, and their high risk for secondary malignancies, it is critical to understand how risk-reducing surgeries affect patient outcomes, so that the risks and benefits of these procedures can be carefully weighed.”

“We hope these findings may help to improve the counseling on cancer-risk management strategies for BRCA carriers with young-onset of breast cancer below the age of 40 years,” Lambertini added during a press briefing. 

Various risk-reducing strategies, including risk-reducing surgeries, are recommended for BRCA-mutation carriers without a prior history of cancer, but the impact of these surgeries among younger populations with a history of early-onset breast cancer has been less clear.

The new findings come from the BRCA BCY Collaboration, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 5290 patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations who were diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer at ≤ 40 years. The risk-reducing mastectomy analysis included 2910 patients (55%) who underwent the surgery less than 1 year from diagnosis and 2380 who opted not to have the surgery. 

Primary endpoint was overall survival, and disease-free survival and breast cancer-free interval were secondary endpoints. Overall survival models were adjusted for the development of distant recurrences or second primary malignancies.

During median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy had a 35% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.65) as well as a significant improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.58) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.55). The improved outcomes were seen in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, Lambertini reported. 

The risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy analysis included 2782 patients who underwent this surgery a median of 3 years from diagnosis and 2508 who did not. 

During median follow up of 4.9 years, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 42% lower risk for death (aHR, 0.58) as well as an improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.68) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.65).

For risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was an interaction based on breast cancer subtype and BRCA mutation.

“Specifically, the benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was greater for patients with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and for those with triple-negative disease, as compared to those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants or luminal disease,” Lambertini reported.

Overall survival results were similar in patients who underwent one or both surgeries.

Briefing moderator Kate Lathrop, MD, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, noted that this study provides valuable information for counseling younger patients. Having datasets like this helps us give patients “potentially our best estimate of the amount of reduction of risk you could have by having the surgery now.”

In an interview, Freya Schnabel, MD, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York City, emphasized the importance of early, well-informed decision-making upfront at the time of diagnosis in this patient population.

The benefit of “risk-reducing oophorectomy cannot be overemphasized, even in the presence of a known breast cancer because, as my colleagues and I say — we don’t want to cure their breast cancer and then have them die of ovarian cancer,” said Schnabel, who was not involved in the study.

In terms of prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, Schnabel noted that BRCA-mutation carriers have a “very high” risk for a second primary breast cancer. In her experience, “that’s what drives patients frequently at the time of diagnosis to have bilateral mastectomy because who wants to go through this more than once?” 

This is especially true for BRCA1 carriers who have a higher risk for triple-negative breast cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis and is harder to treat, Schnabel said. 

“For these patients, having surgery prevents the patient from getting into a situation where their second primary tumor winds up being biologically more aggressive and then affects their survival,” Schnabel said.

The study was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the European Society for Medical Oncology. Lambertini reported advisory roles for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini. Lathrop consults for TeraSera Pharmaceuticals. Schnabel had no relevant disclosures.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

TOPLINE:

The beneficial effect of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and remained event free for 6-18 months on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is consistent, regardless of bleeding risk or PCI complexity, according to a post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HOST-EXAM Extended study conducted across 37 sites in South Korea included patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents and remained free of clinical events for 6-18 months post-PCI, while receiving DAPT.
• This post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM Extended study compared the effectiveness of long-term daily clopidogrel (75 mg) with that of aspirin monotherapy (100 mg) after PCI, according to bleeding risk and procedural complexity in 3974 patients (mean age, 63 years; 75% men) who were followed for up to 5.9 years.
• High bleeding risk was reported in 866 patients, and 849 patients underwent complex PCI.
• Patients were classified into four distinct risk groups: No bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, no bleeding risk and complex PCI, high bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, and high bleeding risk and complex PCI.
• The co-primary endpoints were thrombotic composite events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission due to acute coronary syndrome, and definite/probable stent thrombosis) and any bleeding event.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thrombotic composite events (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; P < .001) and any bleeding event (HR, 3.64; P < .001) were more frequent in patients with a high bleeding risk than in those without.
• However, there was no difference in the risk for thrombotic composite events or any bleeding event by PCI complexity.
• The long-term benefits of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy were seen in all patients, regardless of bleeding risks (P for interaction = .38 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .20 for any bleeding event) or PCI complexity (P for interaction = .12 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .62 for any bleeding event).
• The greatest risk reduction in thrombotic composite events with clopidogrel monotherapy occurred in patients with a high bleeding risk who underwent complex PCI (HR, 0.46; P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“[In this study], no significant interaction was found between treatment arms and risk groups, denoting that the beneficial impact of clopidogrel monotherapy was consistent regardless of HBR [high bleeding risk] or PCI complexity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jeehoon Kang, MD, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

As this study is a post hoc analysis, the findings should be considered primarily hypothesis generating. This study was conducted exclusively in an East Asian population and may not be generalizable to other ethnic groups. The definitions of high bleeding risk and complex PCI used in this analysis were not prespecified in the study protocol of the HOST-EXAM trial. Certain criteria defining high bleeding risk were not analyzed as they fell under the exclusion criteria of the HOST-EXAM trial or were not recorded in the study case report form.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center and Seoul National University Hospital. One author reported receiving grants and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The beneficial effect of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and remained event free for 6-18 months on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is consistent, regardless of bleeding risk or PCI complexity, according to a post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HOST-EXAM Extended study conducted across 37 sites in South Korea included patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents and remained free of clinical events for 6-18 months post-PCI, while receiving DAPT.
• This post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM Extended study compared the effectiveness of long-term daily clopidogrel (75 mg) with that of aspirin monotherapy (100 mg) after PCI, according to bleeding risk and procedural complexity in 3974 patients (mean age, 63 years; 75% men) who were followed for up to 5.9 years.
• High bleeding risk was reported in 866 patients, and 849 patients underwent complex PCI.
• Patients were classified into four distinct risk groups: No bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, no bleeding risk and complex PCI, high bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, and high bleeding risk and complex PCI.
• The co-primary endpoints were thrombotic composite events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission due to acute coronary syndrome, and definite/probable stent thrombosis) and any bleeding event.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thrombotic composite events (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; P < .001) and any bleeding event (HR, 3.64; P < .001) were more frequent in patients with a high bleeding risk than in those without.
• However, there was no difference in the risk for thrombotic composite events or any bleeding event by PCI complexity.
• The long-term benefits of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy were seen in all patients, regardless of bleeding risks (P for interaction = .38 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .20 for any bleeding event) or PCI complexity (P for interaction = .12 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .62 for any bleeding event).
• The greatest risk reduction in thrombotic composite events with clopidogrel monotherapy occurred in patients with a high bleeding risk who underwent complex PCI (HR, 0.46; P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“[In this study], no significant interaction was found between treatment arms and risk groups, denoting that the beneficial impact of clopidogrel monotherapy was consistent regardless of HBR [high bleeding risk] or PCI complexity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jeehoon Kang, MD, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

As this study is a post hoc analysis, the findings should be considered primarily hypothesis generating. This study was conducted exclusively in an East Asian population and may not be generalizable to other ethnic groups. The definitions of high bleeding risk and complex PCI used in this analysis were not prespecified in the study protocol of the HOST-EXAM trial. Certain criteria defining high bleeding risk were not analyzed as they fell under the exclusion criteria of the HOST-EXAM trial or were not recorded in the study case report form.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center and Seoul National University Hospital. One author reported receiving grants and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The beneficial effect of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and remained event free for 6-18 months on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is consistent, regardless of bleeding risk or PCI complexity, according to a post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HOST-EXAM Extended study conducted across 37 sites in South Korea included patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents and remained free of clinical events for 6-18 months post-PCI, while receiving DAPT.
• This post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM Extended study compared the effectiveness of long-term daily clopidogrel (75 mg) with that of aspirin monotherapy (100 mg) after PCI, according to bleeding risk and procedural complexity in 3974 patients (mean age, 63 years; 75% men) who were followed for up to 5.9 years.
• High bleeding risk was reported in 866 patients, and 849 patients underwent complex PCI.
• Patients were classified into four distinct risk groups: No bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, no bleeding risk and complex PCI, high bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, and high bleeding risk and complex PCI.
• The co-primary endpoints were thrombotic composite events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission due to acute coronary syndrome, and definite/probable stent thrombosis) and any bleeding event.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thrombotic composite events (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; P < .001) and any bleeding event (HR, 3.64; P < .001) were more frequent in patients with a high bleeding risk than in those without.
• However, there was no difference in the risk for thrombotic composite events or any bleeding event by PCI complexity.
• The long-term benefits of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy were seen in all patients, regardless of bleeding risks (P for interaction = .38 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .20 for any bleeding event) or PCI complexity (P for interaction = .12 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .62 for any bleeding event).
• The greatest risk reduction in thrombotic composite events with clopidogrel monotherapy occurred in patients with a high bleeding risk who underwent complex PCI (HR, 0.46; P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“[In this study], no significant interaction was found between treatment arms and risk groups, denoting that the beneficial impact of clopidogrel monotherapy was consistent regardless of HBR [high bleeding risk] or PCI complexity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jeehoon Kang, MD, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

As this study is a post hoc analysis, the findings should be considered primarily hypothesis generating. This study was conducted exclusively in an East Asian population and may not be generalizable to other ethnic groups. The definitions of high bleeding risk and complex PCI used in this analysis were not prespecified in the study protocol of the HOST-EXAM trial. Certain criteria defining high bleeding risk were not analyzed as they fell under the exclusion criteria of the HOST-EXAM trial or were not recorded in the study case report form.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center and Seoul National University Hospital. One author reported receiving grants and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Self-care preparedness is positively associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with chronic conditions over 36 months, and patients who enhance their self-care preparedness experience better QOL outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Finland from 2017 to 2021 aimed to analyze the longitudinal associations between self-care preparedness and HRQOL over a 36-month follow-up period.
• A total of 256 adults with hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease who participated in a patient care planning process in primary healthcare and completed the self-care intervention were included.
• The intervention comprised individualized care plans with a self-care form, including the self-care preparedness index (SCPI), which was initially mailed to the participants; the form explained self-care concepts and included assessments of health behaviors and willingness to change.
• Self-care preparedness was measured using SCPI scores, which were divided into tertiles: Low (−5 to 0), moderate (1-3), and high (4-5) preparedness.
• Outcome measures assessed at baseline and at 12 and 36 months included changes in the SCPI; HRQOL, assessed using 15D, which is a 15-dimensional measure; depressive symptoms; self-rated health; life satisfaction; and physical activity. The associations were analyzed using regression models.

TAKEAWAY:

• At baseline, participants with a higher SCPI score showed higher physical activity, life satisfaction, self-rated health, and management of their overall health; however, body mass index and the presence of depressive symptoms had a negative relationship with SCPI.
• Various dimensions of 15D, particularly usual activities, discomfort and symptoms, distress, depression, vitality, and sexual activity, showed a positive linear relationship with SCPI at baseline.
• A lower SCPI score at baseline was associated with greater improvements in the measures of HRQOL.
• A significant positive longitudinal association was observed between changes in SCPI and 15D from baseline to 36 months (beta coefficient, +0.19; P = .002), showing that QOL can improve if patients manage to improve their SCPI.

IN PRACTICE:

“SCPI could be used as an indicative index, keeping in mind that participants with lower SCPI have the potential to benefit and change their health behavior the most. The patient and the healthcare provider should consider which areas of self-care the patient needs support,” the authors wrote. “This study provides further knowledge of this tool for the purpose of aiding healthcare professionals in screening self-care preparedness in primary healthcare,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ulla Mikkonen, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. It was published online in Family Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively small sample size limited to a local area in Finland may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, variations in the implementation of the intervention in real-life settings could have influenced the results. The data on whether general practitioners used the SCPI to formulate care plans were lacking.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Primary Health Care Unit of the Northern Savo Hospital District and Siilinjärvi Health Center. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Self-care preparedness is positively associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with chronic conditions over 36 months, and patients who enhance their self-care preparedness experience better QOL outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Finland from 2017 to 2021 aimed to analyze the longitudinal associations between self-care preparedness and HRQOL over a 36-month follow-up period.
• A total of 256 adults with hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease who participated in a patient care planning process in primary healthcare and completed the self-care intervention were included.
• The intervention comprised individualized care plans with a self-care form, including the self-care preparedness index (SCPI), which was initially mailed to the participants; the form explained self-care concepts and included assessments of health behaviors and willingness to change.
• Self-care preparedness was measured using SCPI scores, which were divided into tertiles: Low (−5 to 0), moderate (1-3), and high (4-5) preparedness.
• Outcome measures assessed at baseline and at 12 and 36 months included changes in the SCPI; HRQOL, assessed using 15D, which is a 15-dimensional measure; depressive symptoms; self-rated health; life satisfaction; and physical activity. The associations were analyzed using regression models.

TAKEAWAY:

• At baseline, participants with a higher SCPI score showed higher physical activity, life satisfaction, self-rated health, and management of their overall health; however, body mass index and the presence of depressive symptoms had a negative relationship with SCPI.
• Various dimensions of 15D, particularly usual activities, discomfort and symptoms, distress, depression, vitality, and sexual activity, showed a positive linear relationship with SCPI at baseline.
• A lower SCPI score at baseline was associated with greater improvements in the measures of HRQOL.
• A significant positive longitudinal association was observed between changes in SCPI and 15D from baseline to 36 months (beta coefficient, +0.19; P = .002), showing that QOL can improve if patients manage to improve their SCPI.

IN PRACTICE:

“SCPI could be used as an indicative index, keeping in mind that participants with lower SCPI have the potential to benefit and change their health behavior the most. The patient and the healthcare provider should consider which areas of self-care the patient needs support,” the authors wrote. “This study provides further knowledge of this tool for the purpose of aiding healthcare professionals in screening self-care preparedness in primary healthcare,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ulla Mikkonen, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. It was published online in Family Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively small sample size limited to a local area in Finland may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, variations in the implementation of the intervention in real-life settings could have influenced the results. The data on whether general practitioners used the SCPI to formulate care plans were lacking.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Primary Health Care Unit of the Northern Savo Hospital District and Siilinjärvi Health Center. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Self-care preparedness is positively associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with chronic conditions over 36 months, and patients who enhance their self-care preparedness experience better QOL outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Finland from 2017 to 2021 aimed to analyze the longitudinal associations between self-care preparedness and HRQOL over a 36-month follow-up period.
• A total of 256 adults with hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease who participated in a patient care planning process in primary healthcare and completed the self-care intervention were included.
• The intervention comprised individualized care plans with a self-care form, including the self-care preparedness index (SCPI), which was initially mailed to the participants; the form explained self-care concepts and included assessments of health behaviors and willingness to change.
• Self-care preparedness was measured using SCPI scores, which were divided into tertiles: Low (−5 to 0), moderate (1-3), and high (4-5) preparedness.
• Outcome measures assessed at baseline and at 12 and 36 months included changes in the SCPI; HRQOL, assessed using 15D, which is a 15-dimensional measure; depressive symptoms; self-rated health; life satisfaction; and physical activity. The associations were analyzed using regression models.

TAKEAWAY:

• At baseline, participants with a higher SCPI score showed higher physical activity, life satisfaction, self-rated health, and management of their overall health; however, body mass index and the presence of depressive symptoms had a negative relationship with SCPI.
• Various dimensions of 15D, particularly usual activities, discomfort and symptoms, distress, depression, vitality, and sexual activity, showed a positive linear relationship with SCPI at baseline.
• A lower SCPI score at baseline was associated with greater improvements in the measures of HRQOL.
• A significant positive longitudinal association was observed between changes in SCPI and 15D from baseline to 36 months (beta coefficient, +0.19; P = .002), showing that QOL can improve if patients manage to improve their SCPI.

IN PRACTICE:

“SCPI could be used as an indicative index, keeping in mind that participants with lower SCPI have the potential to benefit and change their health behavior the most. The patient and the healthcare provider should consider which areas of self-care the patient needs support,” the authors wrote. “This study provides further knowledge of this tool for the purpose of aiding healthcare professionals in screening self-care preparedness in primary healthcare,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ulla Mikkonen, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. It was published online in Family Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively small sample size limited to a local area in Finland may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, variations in the implementation of the intervention in real-life settings could have influenced the results. The data on whether general practitioners used the SCPI to formulate care plans were lacking.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Primary Health Care Unit of the Northern Savo Hospital District and Siilinjärvi Health Center. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.

The inflammatory pathways associated with COPD are diverse and offer a range of potential targets for biologics, said Rennard, a professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 

The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.

 

The Biology Behind the Biologics

T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.

Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.

Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.

In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.

Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.

 

Fitting the Biologic to the Patient

Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.

Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.

In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.

Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.

In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.

In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.

 

Takeaways and Next Steps

“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.

Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.

Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.

Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.

Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.

Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.

The inflammatory pathways associated with COPD are diverse and offer a range of potential targets for biologics, said Rennard, a professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 

The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.

 

The Biology Behind the Biologics

T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.

Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.

Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.

In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.

Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.

 

Fitting the Biologic to the Patient

Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.

Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.

In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.

Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.

In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.

In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.

 

Takeaways and Next Steps

“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.

Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.

Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.

Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.

Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.

Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.

The inflammatory pathways associated with COPD are diverse and offer a range of potential targets for biologics, said Rennard, a professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 

The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.

 

The Biology Behind the Biologics

T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.

Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.

Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.

In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.

Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.

 

Fitting the Biologic to the Patient

Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.

Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.

In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.

Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.

In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.

In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.

 

Takeaways and Next Steps

“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.

Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.

Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.

Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.

Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.

Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s been a while since I’ve discussed the H5N1 avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b and its rapid spread in North America. I hope the facts prove me wrong, but many experts have been warning for some time that ideal conditions are forming for this virus, which for now only causes zoonoses, to pose a pandemic threat.

Let me recap for anyone who may have missed some of the developments, either because they work in other medical fields or think that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic was a worst-case scenario that is unlikely to be repeated in the short term.

 

The Virus Has Flown to Hawaii

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, the infection has now affected more than 500 cattle herds in 15 states. There are about 30 outbreaks reported in poultry, equally distributed between backyard and farm-raised birds, primarily located in California. Here alone, over 3 million birds have been affected. 

Wild birds are believed to have transported the highly pathogenic virus via migration routes across the Pacific, introducing it to Hawaii for the first time. Just days after wastewater analysis detected the presence of H5N1 on the island of Oahu, home to the capital Honolulu, the first outbreak was promptly reported, killing at least a dozen ducks and geese in a backyard coop. Some of these birds had been taken in early November to the Mililani Pet Fair, a sort of domestic animal festival. Local authorities recommended that anyone who attended the fair, touched a duck or goose at the event, and developed symptoms including fever, cough, sore throat, and conjunctivitis, should isolate and seek medical advice.

Meanwhile, more than 50 farmers, animal handlers, or workers involved in the slaughter of cattle or poultry across seven states have been confirmed infected, presumably contracted at their workplace. The latest case, diagnosed recently in Oregon, presented with severe conjunctivitis and mild respiratory symptoms. More than half of these patients have been identified in recent weeks in California, where active surveillance measures have been implemented. However, there is strong suspicion that the actual number of people infected with mild symptoms in the rest of the country is much, much higher.

 

The Red Alert Lights Up in Canada

The level of concern was raised further with news of the first severe — indeed very severe — case of H5N1 avian influenza originating from the western edge of Canada. A teenager (gender not disclosed), previously healthy and without risk factors, was hospitalized with severe respiratory failure in the intensive care unit at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. The source of the infection is unknown, similar to only one other case in Missouri involving an adult already hospitalized for other reasons, which was identified by chance through influenza surveillance programs. We also know that the Canadian adolescent does not live on a farm and had no known contact with potentially infected animals. The only suspicions focus on the family dog, euthanized owing to unspecified health problems in the early days of the epidemiologic investigation. Although the dog tested negative for avian influenza, a necropsy will be conducted to rule out its involvement in the transmission chain.

An initial characterization of the virus has linked it to genotype D1.1, which is circulating among wild birds and poultry farms in Canada’s westernmost province, rather than the strain typical of dairy cows in the United States. The publication of the complete viral sequence over the past weekend has, for the first time, highlighted mutations that could enhance the virus’s ability to infect human cells.

How do we know this? From the highly contested “gain-of-function” studies, which artificially modify viruses to understand which genomic points require the most surveillance — those mutations that can make the infectious agent more virulent or more transmissible between people.

 

Under Special Surveillance for 20 Years

The influenza A (H5N1) avian virus is not new or previously unknown, like SARS-CoV-2, and this could (in theory) give us a slight advantage. We have known about it for decades, and it began infecting humans about 20 years ago, causing pneumonia with respiratory failure. It proved lethal in about half of the cases, but only in people who had close contact with infected poultry, primarily in Southeast Asia.

Hundreds of other human cases occurred worldwide, but always in low-income countries with poor hygiene conditions and where families lived in close contact with animals. This contributed to a false sense of security in Europe and North America, where the threat has been consistently underestimated. Despite an estimated fatality rate of around 50%, the media often labeled scientists’ warnings and health authorities’ efforts to remain prepared as false alarms, tainted by suspicions of catering to the interests of pharmaceutical companies.

Some people may recall the scandal involving Tamiflu, the Roche antiviral oseltamivir, that governments stockpiled when there were fears that the avian virus might acquire the ability to spread among humans. It was dubbed “a false antidote for a false pandemic,” referring to the potential avian pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, improperly called “swine flu,” and which turned out to be less severe than expected. There was talk of €2.64 billion being “wasted” to “please” the manufacturer. Although the Cochrane Collaboration made legitimate demands for rigor and transparency in conducting and publishing clinical trials, much of the public, and the journalists who wrote the stories, cared little about these technical aspects. The prevailing message was that stockpiling drugs (or vaccines) for a disease we don’t even know will occur is a waste of taxpayers’ money rather than a prudent preventive measure.

 

More Vulnerable Than Ever

If we were to ascribe strategic thinking to the virus, which it is not capable of, we might argue that it chose the ideal moment to conquer the world. It began circulating in the new clade in 2020, when experts and authorities were focused on the coronavirus. It spread from birds to marine mammals and finally to cattle, exploiting the public’s post-pandemic fatigue, as people no longer wanted to hear about infectious diseases and containment measures. It ultimately rode the wave of political polarization that irrationally equates prevention with supposed cowardice on the left, and recklessness with courageous freedom on the right.

The coincidence between the future appointments announced by the incoming Trump administration and the virus’s accelerated spread deserves attention from decision-makers and health professionals worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should have taught us that ignoring a threat doesn’t make it go away, if not in our health, then at least in our wallet. The economic repercussions of a virus circulating among animals crucial to our food chain and national economies should concern everyone, well before the threat crosses the ocean, because only then can we defend ourselves.

The proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is a proponent of the supposed benefits of raw milk, which could serve as a potent vector for the virus. He is ideologically opposed to vaccinations. It’s hard to imagine he would utilize the H5N1 vaccine stockpiles held by the US government for a campaign starting at least with farmers, as was done prophylactically in Finland with products jointly procured by 15 European countries — a group the Italian government decided not to join.

If Kennedy indeed becomes responsible for US public health, it’s reasonable to fear that, in the name of freedom, he will try to delay as much as possible — even if necessary — the obligation to undergo testing and wear masks, not to mention more restrictive infection containment measures. It’s also unlikely he would support and promote the development of new mRNA products already under study, which would become indispensable if the disease begins to spread more easily among people, as well as animals. In such a case, traditional influenza vaccine cultivation methods using chicken eggs would prove too slow and quantitatively insufficient, especially if the virus continues to circulate among poultry.

In short, let’s keep our fingers crossed, but recognize that crossing our fingers might not be enough.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s been a while since I’ve discussed the H5N1 avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b and its rapid spread in North America. I hope the facts prove me wrong, but many experts have been warning for some time that ideal conditions are forming for this virus, which for now only causes zoonoses, to pose a pandemic threat.

Let me recap for anyone who may have missed some of the developments, either because they work in other medical fields or think that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic was a worst-case scenario that is unlikely to be repeated in the short term.

 

The Virus Has Flown to Hawaii

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, the infection has now affected more than 500 cattle herds in 15 states. There are about 30 outbreaks reported in poultry, equally distributed between backyard and farm-raised birds, primarily located in California. Here alone, over 3 million birds have been affected. 

Wild birds are believed to have transported the highly pathogenic virus via migration routes across the Pacific, introducing it to Hawaii for the first time. Just days after wastewater analysis detected the presence of H5N1 on the island of Oahu, home to the capital Honolulu, the first outbreak was promptly reported, killing at least a dozen ducks and geese in a backyard coop. Some of these birds had been taken in early November to the Mililani Pet Fair, a sort of domestic animal festival. Local authorities recommended that anyone who attended the fair, touched a duck or goose at the event, and developed symptoms including fever, cough, sore throat, and conjunctivitis, should isolate and seek medical advice.

Meanwhile, more than 50 farmers, animal handlers, or workers involved in the slaughter of cattle or poultry across seven states have been confirmed infected, presumably contracted at their workplace. The latest case, diagnosed recently in Oregon, presented with severe conjunctivitis and mild respiratory symptoms. More than half of these patients have been identified in recent weeks in California, where active surveillance measures have been implemented. However, there is strong suspicion that the actual number of people infected with mild symptoms in the rest of the country is much, much higher.

 

The Red Alert Lights Up in Canada

The level of concern was raised further with news of the first severe — indeed very severe — case of H5N1 avian influenza originating from the western edge of Canada. A teenager (gender not disclosed), previously healthy and without risk factors, was hospitalized with severe respiratory failure in the intensive care unit at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. The source of the infection is unknown, similar to only one other case in Missouri involving an adult already hospitalized for other reasons, which was identified by chance through influenza surveillance programs. We also know that the Canadian adolescent does not live on a farm and had no known contact with potentially infected animals. The only suspicions focus on the family dog, euthanized owing to unspecified health problems in the early days of the epidemiologic investigation. Although the dog tested negative for avian influenza, a necropsy will be conducted to rule out its involvement in the transmission chain.

An initial characterization of the virus has linked it to genotype D1.1, which is circulating among wild birds and poultry farms in Canada’s westernmost province, rather than the strain typical of dairy cows in the United States. The publication of the complete viral sequence over the past weekend has, for the first time, highlighted mutations that could enhance the virus’s ability to infect human cells.

How do we know this? From the highly contested “gain-of-function” studies, which artificially modify viruses to understand which genomic points require the most surveillance — those mutations that can make the infectious agent more virulent or more transmissible between people.

 

Under Special Surveillance for 20 Years

The influenza A (H5N1) avian virus is not new or previously unknown, like SARS-CoV-2, and this could (in theory) give us a slight advantage. We have known about it for decades, and it began infecting humans about 20 years ago, causing pneumonia with respiratory failure. It proved lethal in about half of the cases, but only in people who had close contact with infected poultry, primarily in Southeast Asia.

Hundreds of other human cases occurred worldwide, but always in low-income countries with poor hygiene conditions and where families lived in close contact with animals. This contributed to a false sense of security in Europe and North America, where the threat has been consistently underestimated. Despite an estimated fatality rate of around 50%, the media often labeled scientists’ warnings and health authorities’ efforts to remain prepared as false alarms, tainted by suspicions of catering to the interests of pharmaceutical companies.

Some people may recall the scandal involving Tamiflu, the Roche antiviral oseltamivir, that governments stockpiled when there were fears that the avian virus might acquire the ability to spread among humans. It was dubbed “a false antidote for a false pandemic,” referring to the potential avian pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, improperly called “swine flu,” and which turned out to be less severe than expected. There was talk of €2.64 billion being “wasted” to “please” the manufacturer. Although the Cochrane Collaboration made legitimate demands for rigor and transparency in conducting and publishing clinical trials, much of the public, and the journalists who wrote the stories, cared little about these technical aspects. The prevailing message was that stockpiling drugs (or vaccines) for a disease we don’t even know will occur is a waste of taxpayers’ money rather than a prudent preventive measure.

 

More Vulnerable Than Ever

If we were to ascribe strategic thinking to the virus, which it is not capable of, we might argue that it chose the ideal moment to conquer the world. It began circulating in the new clade in 2020, when experts and authorities were focused on the coronavirus. It spread from birds to marine mammals and finally to cattle, exploiting the public’s post-pandemic fatigue, as people no longer wanted to hear about infectious diseases and containment measures. It ultimately rode the wave of political polarization that irrationally equates prevention with supposed cowardice on the left, and recklessness with courageous freedom on the right.

The coincidence between the future appointments announced by the incoming Trump administration and the virus’s accelerated spread deserves attention from decision-makers and health professionals worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should have taught us that ignoring a threat doesn’t make it go away, if not in our health, then at least in our wallet. The economic repercussions of a virus circulating among animals crucial to our food chain and national economies should concern everyone, well before the threat crosses the ocean, because only then can we defend ourselves.

The proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is a proponent of the supposed benefits of raw milk, which could serve as a potent vector for the virus. He is ideologically opposed to vaccinations. It’s hard to imagine he would utilize the H5N1 vaccine stockpiles held by the US government for a campaign starting at least with farmers, as was done prophylactically in Finland with products jointly procured by 15 European countries — a group the Italian government decided not to join.

If Kennedy indeed becomes responsible for US public health, it’s reasonable to fear that, in the name of freedom, he will try to delay as much as possible — even if necessary — the obligation to undergo testing and wear masks, not to mention more restrictive infection containment measures. It’s also unlikely he would support and promote the development of new mRNA products already under study, which would become indispensable if the disease begins to spread more easily among people, as well as animals. In such a case, traditional influenza vaccine cultivation methods using chicken eggs would prove too slow and quantitatively insufficient, especially if the virus continues to circulate among poultry.

In short, let’s keep our fingers crossed, but recognize that crossing our fingers might not be enough.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s been a while since I’ve discussed the H5N1 avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b and its rapid spread in North America. I hope the facts prove me wrong, but many experts have been warning for some time that ideal conditions are forming for this virus, which for now only causes zoonoses, to pose a pandemic threat.

Let me recap for anyone who may have missed some of the developments, either because they work in other medical fields or think that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic was a worst-case scenario that is unlikely to be repeated in the short term.

 

The Virus Has Flown to Hawaii

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, the infection has now affected more than 500 cattle herds in 15 states. There are about 30 outbreaks reported in poultry, equally distributed between backyard and farm-raised birds, primarily located in California. Here alone, over 3 million birds have been affected. 

Wild birds are believed to have transported the highly pathogenic virus via migration routes across the Pacific, introducing it to Hawaii for the first time. Just days after wastewater analysis detected the presence of H5N1 on the island of Oahu, home to the capital Honolulu, the first outbreak was promptly reported, killing at least a dozen ducks and geese in a backyard coop. Some of these birds had been taken in early November to the Mililani Pet Fair, a sort of domestic animal festival. Local authorities recommended that anyone who attended the fair, touched a duck or goose at the event, and developed symptoms including fever, cough, sore throat, and conjunctivitis, should isolate and seek medical advice.

Meanwhile, more than 50 farmers, animal handlers, or workers involved in the slaughter of cattle or poultry across seven states have been confirmed infected, presumably contracted at their workplace. The latest case, diagnosed recently in Oregon, presented with severe conjunctivitis and mild respiratory symptoms. More than half of these patients have been identified in recent weeks in California, where active surveillance measures have been implemented. However, there is strong suspicion that the actual number of people infected with mild symptoms in the rest of the country is much, much higher.

 

The Red Alert Lights Up in Canada

The level of concern was raised further with news of the first severe — indeed very severe — case of H5N1 avian influenza originating from the western edge of Canada. A teenager (gender not disclosed), previously healthy and without risk factors, was hospitalized with severe respiratory failure in the intensive care unit at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. The source of the infection is unknown, similar to only one other case in Missouri involving an adult already hospitalized for other reasons, which was identified by chance through influenza surveillance programs. We also know that the Canadian adolescent does not live on a farm and had no known contact with potentially infected animals. The only suspicions focus on the family dog, euthanized owing to unspecified health problems in the early days of the epidemiologic investigation. Although the dog tested negative for avian influenza, a necropsy will be conducted to rule out its involvement in the transmission chain.

An initial characterization of the virus has linked it to genotype D1.1, which is circulating among wild birds and poultry farms in Canada’s westernmost province, rather than the strain typical of dairy cows in the United States. The publication of the complete viral sequence over the past weekend has, for the first time, highlighted mutations that could enhance the virus’s ability to infect human cells.

How do we know this? From the highly contested “gain-of-function” studies, which artificially modify viruses to understand which genomic points require the most surveillance — those mutations that can make the infectious agent more virulent or more transmissible between people.

 

Under Special Surveillance for 20 Years

The influenza A (H5N1) avian virus is not new or previously unknown, like SARS-CoV-2, and this could (in theory) give us a slight advantage. We have known about it for decades, and it began infecting humans about 20 years ago, causing pneumonia with respiratory failure. It proved lethal in about half of the cases, but only in people who had close contact with infected poultry, primarily in Southeast Asia.

Hundreds of other human cases occurred worldwide, but always in low-income countries with poor hygiene conditions and where families lived in close contact with animals. This contributed to a false sense of security in Europe and North America, where the threat has been consistently underestimated. Despite an estimated fatality rate of around 50%, the media often labeled scientists’ warnings and health authorities’ efforts to remain prepared as false alarms, tainted by suspicions of catering to the interests of pharmaceutical companies.

Some people may recall the scandal involving Tamiflu, the Roche antiviral oseltamivir, that governments stockpiled when there were fears that the avian virus might acquire the ability to spread among humans. It was dubbed “a false antidote for a false pandemic,” referring to the potential avian pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, improperly called “swine flu,” and which turned out to be less severe than expected. There was talk of €2.64 billion being “wasted” to “please” the manufacturer. Although the Cochrane Collaboration made legitimate demands for rigor and transparency in conducting and publishing clinical trials, much of the public, and the journalists who wrote the stories, cared little about these technical aspects. The prevailing message was that stockpiling drugs (or vaccines) for a disease we don’t even know will occur is a waste of taxpayers’ money rather than a prudent preventive measure.

 

More Vulnerable Than Ever

If we were to ascribe strategic thinking to the virus, which it is not capable of, we might argue that it chose the ideal moment to conquer the world. It began circulating in the new clade in 2020, when experts and authorities were focused on the coronavirus. It spread from birds to marine mammals and finally to cattle, exploiting the public’s post-pandemic fatigue, as people no longer wanted to hear about infectious diseases and containment measures. It ultimately rode the wave of political polarization that irrationally equates prevention with supposed cowardice on the left, and recklessness with courageous freedom on the right.

The coincidence between the future appointments announced by the incoming Trump administration and the virus’s accelerated spread deserves attention from decision-makers and health professionals worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should have taught us that ignoring a threat doesn’t make it go away, if not in our health, then at least in our wallet. The economic repercussions of a virus circulating among animals crucial to our food chain and national economies should concern everyone, well before the threat crosses the ocean, because only then can we defend ourselves.

The proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is a proponent of the supposed benefits of raw milk, which could serve as a potent vector for the virus. He is ideologically opposed to vaccinations. It’s hard to imagine he would utilize the H5N1 vaccine stockpiles held by the US government for a campaign starting at least with farmers, as was done prophylactically in Finland with products jointly procured by 15 European countries — a group the Italian government decided not to join.

If Kennedy indeed becomes responsible for US public health, it’s reasonable to fear that, in the name of freedom, he will try to delay as much as possible — even if necessary — the obligation to undergo testing and wear masks, not to mention more restrictive infection containment measures. It’s also unlikely he would support and promote the development of new mRNA products already under study, which would become indispensable if the disease begins to spread more easily among people, as well as animals. In such a case, traditional influenza vaccine cultivation methods using chicken eggs would prove too slow and quantitatively insufficient, especially if the virus continues to circulate among poultry.

In short, let’s keep our fingers crossed, but recognize that crossing our fingers might not be enough.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.