Kerry Dooley Young

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A panel of US government advisers unanimously backed use of highly sensitive tests that check for minimal residual disease (MRD) in efforts to accelerate approvals of drugs for multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer.

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.

ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.

There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).

“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”

“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.

Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10^-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.

The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.

Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.

These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.

In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.

The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.

The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.

The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.

In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.

Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.

“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”

Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.

“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”

A panel of US government advisers unanimously backed use of highly sensitive tests that check for minimal residual disease (MRD) in efforts to accelerate approvals of drugs for multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer.

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.

ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.

There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).

“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”

“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.

Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10^-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.

The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.

Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.

These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.

In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.

The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.

The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.

The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.

In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.

Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.

“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”

Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.

“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”

A panel of US government advisers unanimously backed use of highly sensitive tests that check for minimal residual disease (MRD) in efforts to accelerate approvals of drugs for multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer.

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.

ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.

There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).

“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”

“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.

Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10^-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.

The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.

Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.

These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.

In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.

The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.

The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.

The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.

In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.

Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.

“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”

Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.

“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”

A group of researchers urged US regulators to revoke the approval of a test marketed for predicting risk for opioid addiction and said government health plans should not pay for the product. 

The focus of the request is AdvertD (SOLVD Health), which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in December as the first test to use DNA to evaluate if people have an elevated risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sample obtained through a cheek swab is meant to help guide decisions about opioid prescriptions for patients not previously treated with these drugs, such as someone undergoing a planned surgery, the FDA said. 

But Michael T. Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher for Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and 30 other physicians and researchers sent an April 4 letter to the Food and Drug Administration calling on the government to reconsider. 

Dr. Abrams and fellow signers of the letters, including longtime opioid watchdog Andrew Kolodny, MD, of Brandeis University, said the algorithm used in creating AvertD “fell into known pitfalls of genetic prediction that give the appearance of predicting genetic risk, without being a true measure of genetic risk.” 

“The harmful consequences of an invalid genetic test for OUD are clear. Patients who test negative, and their clinicians, may have a false sense of security about use of opioids,” the letter states. 

The letter adds that false-positive test results may result in harmful consequences, with clinicians refraining from prescribing needed opioids, a problem that may be magnified in minority populations. 

Among the signers of the letter is Alexander Hatoum, PhD, of Washington University, who conducted an independent evaluation of AdvertD, which he and his colleagues published in 2021 in Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 

Dr. Hatoum said many patients may not fully understand the limit of genetic testing in predicting conditions like risk for OUD, where many factors are at play. The availability of a test may lend the impression that a single DNA trait makes the difference, as happens with conditions like Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis, he said. 

“But it’s just not reality for most diseases,” Dr. Hatoum told this news organization. 

The FDA declined to comment on the letter and said its approval of the test was “another step forward” in efforts to prevent new cases of OUD. 

In 2021, a little more than three quarters of people who died by overdose in the United States involved opioids, or more than 80,000 people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This figure includes prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl. 

While deaths from overdoses with prescription opioids peaked in 2017 at 17,029 people, that figure has decreased steadily. Meanwhile, synthetic opioids other than methadone — primarily fentanyl — were the main driver of drug overdose deaths with a nearly 7.5-fold increase from 2015 to 2021. 

The FDA agency said it had “a reasonable assurance of AvertD’s safety and effectiveness, taking into consideration available alternatives, patients’ perspectives, the public health need and the ability to address uncertainty through the collection of post-market data.” 

Slow Rollout

In a separate letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Abrams, Dr. Kolodny, Dr. Hatoum, and the other signers repeated their arguments against the use of AdvertD and asked that the government not use federal funds to pay for the test. 

SOLVD is not yet selling AdvertD in the United States, and it has not yet set a price for the product. The Carlsbad, California-based company told this news organization in an email exchange that it is working with both Medicare and private insurers on questions of future coverage. 

AvertD correctly identified an elevated risk for OUD in about 82.8% of cases, equating to a false-negative rate of 18.2% of patients, the FDA said in its summary of on the data supporting the application. This measure is known as sensitivity, meaning it shows how often an individual has the condition addressed in the test. 

Meanwhile, the false positive rate was 20.8%, the FDA said. 

SOLVD published similar study results in 2021. 

The company failed to impress the FDA’s Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel, which in October 2022, said the probable risks of the test likely outweighed its benefits. 

Then, in November 2022, the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a public workshop meeting  to consider the challenges and possibilities in developing tools to predict the risk of developing OUD. At that meeting, Keri Donaldson, MD, MSCE, the chief executive officer of SOLVD, said the company planned to conduct a controlled rollout of AdvertD on FDA approval. 

Dr. Donaldson said a “defined set” of clinicians would first access the test, allowing the company to understand how results would be used in clinical practice.

“Once a test gets into practice, you have to be very purposeful and thoughtful about how it’s used,” he said.

The FDA approved the test in December 2023, saying it had worked with the company on modifications to its test. It also said that the advisory committee’s feedback helped in the evaluation and ultimate approval of AdvertD. 

Even beyond the debate about the predictive ability of genetic tests for OUD are larger questions that physicians need time to ask patients in assessing their potential risk for addiction when prescribing narcotic painkillers, said Maya Hambright, MD, a physician in New York’s Hudson Valley who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the overdose crisis. 

Genetics are just one of many factors at play in causing people to become addicted to opioids, Dr. Hambright said. 

Physicians must also consider the lasting effects of emotional and physical trauma experienced at any age, but particularly in childhood, as well as what kind of social support a patient has in facing the illness or injury that may require opioids for pain, she said. 

“There is a time and place for narcotic medications to be prescribed appropriately, which means we have to do our due diligence,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “Regardless of the strides we make in research and development, we still must connect and communicate safely and effectively and compassionately with our patients.” 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of researchers urged US regulators to revoke the approval of a test marketed for predicting risk for opioid addiction and said government health plans should not pay for the product. 

The focus of the request is AdvertD (SOLVD Health), which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in December as the first test to use DNA to evaluate if people have an elevated risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sample obtained through a cheek swab is meant to help guide decisions about opioid prescriptions for patients not previously treated with these drugs, such as someone undergoing a planned surgery, the FDA said. 

But Michael T. Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher for Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and 30 other physicians and researchers sent an April 4 letter to the Food and Drug Administration calling on the government to reconsider. 

Dr. Abrams and fellow signers of the letters, including longtime opioid watchdog Andrew Kolodny, MD, of Brandeis University, said the algorithm used in creating AvertD “fell into known pitfalls of genetic prediction that give the appearance of predicting genetic risk, without being a true measure of genetic risk.” 

“The harmful consequences of an invalid genetic test for OUD are clear. Patients who test negative, and their clinicians, may have a false sense of security about use of opioids,” the letter states. 

The letter adds that false-positive test results may result in harmful consequences, with clinicians refraining from prescribing needed opioids, a problem that may be magnified in minority populations. 

Among the signers of the letter is Alexander Hatoum, PhD, of Washington University, who conducted an independent evaluation of AdvertD, which he and his colleagues published in 2021 in Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 

Dr. Hatoum said many patients may not fully understand the limit of genetic testing in predicting conditions like risk for OUD, where many factors are at play. The availability of a test may lend the impression that a single DNA trait makes the difference, as happens with conditions like Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis, he said. 

“But it’s just not reality for most diseases,” Dr. Hatoum told this news organization. 

The FDA declined to comment on the letter and said its approval of the test was “another step forward” in efforts to prevent new cases of OUD. 

In 2021, a little more than three quarters of people who died by overdose in the United States involved opioids, or more than 80,000 people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This figure includes prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl. 

While deaths from overdoses with prescription opioids peaked in 2017 at 17,029 people, that figure has decreased steadily. Meanwhile, synthetic opioids other than methadone — primarily fentanyl — were the main driver of drug overdose deaths with a nearly 7.5-fold increase from 2015 to 2021. 

The FDA agency said it had “a reasonable assurance of AvertD’s safety and effectiveness, taking into consideration available alternatives, patients’ perspectives, the public health need and the ability to address uncertainty through the collection of post-market data.” 

Slow Rollout

In a separate letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Abrams, Dr. Kolodny, Dr. Hatoum, and the other signers repeated their arguments against the use of AdvertD and asked that the government not use federal funds to pay for the test. 

SOLVD is not yet selling AdvertD in the United States, and it has not yet set a price for the product. The Carlsbad, California-based company told this news organization in an email exchange that it is working with both Medicare and private insurers on questions of future coverage. 

AvertD correctly identified an elevated risk for OUD in about 82.8% of cases, equating to a false-negative rate of 18.2% of patients, the FDA said in its summary of on the data supporting the application. This measure is known as sensitivity, meaning it shows how often an individual has the condition addressed in the test. 

Meanwhile, the false positive rate was 20.8%, the FDA said. 

SOLVD published similar study results in 2021. 

The company failed to impress the FDA’s Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel, which in October 2022, said the probable risks of the test likely outweighed its benefits. 

Then, in November 2022, the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a public workshop meeting  to consider the challenges and possibilities in developing tools to predict the risk of developing OUD. At that meeting, Keri Donaldson, MD, MSCE, the chief executive officer of SOLVD, said the company planned to conduct a controlled rollout of AdvertD on FDA approval. 

Dr. Donaldson said a “defined set” of clinicians would first access the test, allowing the company to understand how results would be used in clinical practice.

“Once a test gets into practice, you have to be very purposeful and thoughtful about how it’s used,” he said.

The FDA approved the test in December 2023, saying it had worked with the company on modifications to its test. It also said that the advisory committee’s feedback helped in the evaluation and ultimate approval of AdvertD. 

Even beyond the debate about the predictive ability of genetic tests for OUD are larger questions that physicians need time to ask patients in assessing their potential risk for addiction when prescribing narcotic painkillers, said Maya Hambright, MD, a physician in New York’s Hudson Valley who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the overdose crisis. 

Genetics are just one of many factors at play in causing people to become addicted to opioids, Dr. Hambright said. 

Physicians must also consider the lasting effects of emotional and physical trauma experienced at any age, but particularly in childhood, as well as what kind of social support a patient has in facing the illness or injury that may require opioids for pain, she said. 

“There is a time and place for narcotic medications to be prescribed appropriately, which means we have to do our due diligence,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “Regardless of the strides we make in research and development, we still must connect and communicate safely and effectively and compassionately with our patients.” 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of researchers urged US regulators to revoke the approval of a test marketed for predicting risk for opioid addiction and said government health plans should not pay for the product. 

The focus of the request is AdvertD (SOLVD Health), which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in December as the first test to use DNA to evaluate if people have an elevated risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sample obtained through a cheek swab is meant to help guide decisions about opioid prescriptions for patients not previously treated with these drugs, such as someone undergoing a planned surgery, the FDA said. 

But Michael T. Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher for Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and 30 other physicians and researchers sent an April 4 letter to the Food and Drug Administration calling on the government to reconsider. 

Dr. Abrams and fellow signers of the letters, including longtime opioid watchdog Andrew Kolodny, MD, of Brandeis University, said the algorithm used in creating AvertD “fell into known pitfalls of genetic prediction that give the appearance of predicting genetic risk, without being a true measure of genetic risk.” 

“The harmful consequences of an invalid genetic test for OUD are clear. Patients who test negative, and their clinicians, may have a false sense of security about use of opioids,” the letter states. 

The letter adds that false-positive test results may result in harmful consequences, with clinicians refraining from prescribing needed opioids, a problem that may be magnified in minority populations. 

Among the signers of the letter is Alexander Hatoum, PhD, of Washington University, who conducted an independent evaluation of AdvertD, which he and his colleagues published in 2021 in Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 

Dr. Hatoum said many patients may not fully understand the limit of genetic testing in predicting conditions like risk for OUD, where many factors are at play. The availability of a test may lend the impression that a single DNA trait makes the difference, as happens with conditions like Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis, he said. 

“But it’s just not reality for most diseases,” Dr. Hatoum told this news organization. 

The FDA declined to comment on the letter and said its approval of the test was “another step forward” in efforts to prevent new cases of OUD. 

In 2021, a little more than three quarters of people who died by overdose in the United States involved opioids, or more than 80,000 people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This figure includes prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl. 

While deaths from overdoses with prescription opioids peaked in 2017 at 17,029 people, that figure has decreased steadily. Meanwhile, synthetic opioids other than methadone — primarily fentanyl — were the main driver of drug overdose deaths with a nearly 7.5-fold increase from 2015 to 2021. 

The FDA agency said it had “a reasonable assurance of AvertD’s safety and effectiveness, taking into consideration available alternatives, patients’ perspectives, the public health need and the ability to address uncertainty through the collection of post-market data.” 

Slow Rollout

In a separate letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Abrams, Dr. Kolodny, Dr. Hatoum, and the other signers repeated their arguments against the use of AdvertD and asked that the government not use federal funds to pay for the test. 

SOLVD is not yet selling AdvertD in the United States, and it has not yet set a price for the product. The Carlsbad, California-based company told this news organization in an email exchange that it is working with both Medicare and private insurers on questions of future coverage. 

AvertD correctly identified an elevated risk for OUD in about 82.8% of cases, equating to a false-negative rate of 18.2% of patients, the FDA said in its summary of on the data supporting the application. This measure is known as sensitivity, meaning it shows how often an individual has the condition addressed in the test. 

Meanwhile, the false positive rate was 20.8%, the FDA said. 

SOLVD published similar study results in 2021. 

The company failed to impress the FDA’s Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel, which in October 2022, said the probable risks of the test likely outweighed its benefits. 

Then, in November 2022, the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a public workshop meeting  to consider the challenges and possibilities in developing tools to predict the risk of developing OUD. At that meeting, Keri Donaldson, MD, MSCE, the chief executive officer of SOLVD, said the company planned to conduct a controlled rollout of AdvertD on FDA approval. 

Dr. Donaldson said a “defined set” of clinicians would first access the test, allowing the company to understand how results would be used in clinical practice.

“Once a test gets into practice, you have to be very purposeful and thoughtful about how it’s used,” he said.

The FDA approved the test in December 2023, saying it had worked with the company on modifications to its test. It also said that the advisory committee’s feedback helped in the evaluation and ultimate approval of AdvertD. 

Even beyond the debate about the predictive ability of genetic tests for OUD are larger questions that physicians need time to ask patients in assessing their potential risk for addiction when prescribing narcotic painkillers, said Maya Hambright, MD, a physician in New York’s Hudson Valley who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the overdose crisis. 

Genetics are just one of many factors at play in causing people to become addicted to opioids, Dr. Hambright said. 

Physicians must also consider the lasting effects of emotional and physical trauma experienced at any age, but particularly in childhood, as well as what kind of social support a patient has in facing the illness or injury that may require opioids for pain, she said. 

“There is a time and place for narcotic medications to be prescribed appropriately, which means we have to do our due diligence,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “Regardless of the strides we make in research and development, we still must connect and communicate safely and effectively and compassionately with our patients.” 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals said in an interview that it may be the first company to have an accelerated approval application for its cancer drug rebuffed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.

The company once had hoped to win this US clearance for odronextamab in relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) and in R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) by March 31. Last year when Regeneron announced the FDA’s decision to grant priority review for odronextamab, the firm said that the end of this month was the US regulators’ target decision date.

But on March 25, Regeneron said the FDA issued two complete response letters (CRLs) in connection with odronextamab application. It will not approve the experimental medicine at this time.

In the release, Regeneron said the only approvability issue is related to the enrollment status of the confirmatory trials. The letters did not identify issues with the odronextamab clinical efficacy or safety, trial design, labeling, or manufacturing.

“While we acknowledge the general concerns that FDA has about sponsors failing to complete their postmarketing confirmatory trials, the relevant laws and regulatory guidances do not lay out rigid criteria for assessing whether the progress on a confirmatory trial is adequate to allow for an accelerated approval,” Tammy Allen, Regeneron’s director for product and pipeline communications, said in an email. “ And to our knowledge, this is the first time the FDA has issued a CRL for this reason.”

There has been rising concern in recent years about the gap between initial accelerated approvals for medicines and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Thus, a serious knowledge gap arises, often for many years, while patients and physicians use drugs with as yet unproven benefit. Recent studies highlighting this knowledge gap include work from Harvard’s Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) group and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

While Congress has long sought to speed approvals of new drugs, in 2022 lawmakers gave the FDA more clout for efforts to shorten the period of uncertainty between accelerated and traditional approval. Congress added a provision to a large spending package that said the federal government could require a study or studies to be underway prior to approval, or within a specified time period after the date of approval, of the applicable product.

“As this is new territory for us and for industry, we’re committed to working closely with them to address and plan on sharing updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year,” Ms. Allen said.

The FDA generally does not comment on applications under review. In response to a question about Regeneron’s statements, an FDA spokeswoman pointed out by email that the 2022 law had made clear how the agency can decline approval if confirmatory clinical trials are not considered underway prior to approval.

Odronextamab is potentially part of a rapidly advancing field of lymphoma treatments, which include autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy in certain settings. There are severe constraints, though, on CAR-T therapy, including manufacturing delays and treatment-related toxicities. Odronextamab is part of what are called “off-the-shelf” drugs with the same aim as CAR-T. The bispecific antibodies (BsAb) are meant to teach the immune system to fight cancer.

Regeneron said it has been actively enrolling patients in multiple phase 3 trials for odronextamab as part of its OLYMPIA program. The company said this is intended to change the treatment paradigm of several B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes, including in earlier lines of therapy.

Enrollment in the dose-finding portion has begun, but the CRLs indicate that the confirmatory portions of these trials should be underway and that the timelines to completion should be agreed on prior to resubmission, Regeneron said. The company added that it is working closely with the FDA and investigators to bring odronextamab to patients with R/R FL and R/R DLBCL as quickly as possible. The company plans to share updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals said in an interview that it may be the first company to have an accelerated approval application for its cancer drug rebuffed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.

The company once had hoped to win this US clearance for odronextamab in relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) and in R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) by March 31. Last year when Regeneron announced the FDA’s decision to grant priority review for odronextamab, the firm said that the end of this month was the US regulators’ target decision date.

But on March 25, Regeneron said the FDA issued two complete response letters (CRLs) in connection with odronextamab application. It will not approve the experimental medicine at this time.

In the release, Regeneron said the only approvability issue is related to the enrollment status of the confirmatory trials. The letters did not identify issues with the odronextamab clinical efficacy or safety, trial design, labeling, or manufacturing.

“While we acknowledge the general concerns that FDA has about sponsors failing to complete their postmarketing confirmatory trials, the relevant laws and regulatory guidances do not lay out rigid criteria for assessing whether the progress on a confirmatory trial is adequate to allow for an accelerated approval,” Tammy Allen, Regeneron’s director for product and pipeline communications, said in an email. “ And to our knowledge, this is the first time the FDA has issued a CRL for this reason.”

There has been rising concern in recent years about the gap between initial accelerated approvals for medicines and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Thus, a serious knowledge gap arises, often for many years, while patients and physicians use drugs with as yet unproven benefit. Recent studies highlighting this knowledge gap include work from Harvard’s Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) group and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

While Congress has long sought to speed approvals of new drugs, in 2022 lawmakers gave the FDA more clout for efforts to shorten the period of uncertainty between accelerated and traditional approval. Congress added a provision to a large spending package that said the federal government could require a study or studies to be underway prior to approval, or within a specified time period after the date of approval, of the applicable product.

“As this is new territory for us and for industry, we’re committed to working closely with them to address and plan on sharing updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year,” Ms. Allen said.

The FDA generally does not comment on applications under review. In response to a question about Regeneron’s statements, an FDA spokeswoman pointed out by email that the 2022 law had made clear how the agency can decline approval if confirmatory clinical trials are not considered underway prior to approval.

Odronextamab is potentially part of a rapidly advancing field of lymphoma treatments, which include autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy in certain settings. There are severe constraints, though, on CAR-T therapy, including manufacturing delays and treatment-related toxicities. Odronextamab is part of what are called “off-the-shelf” drugs with the same aim as CAR-T. The bispecific antibodies (BsAb) are meant to teach the immune system to fight cancer.

Regeneron said it has been actively enrolling patients in multiple phase 3 trials for odronextamab as part of its OLYMPIA program. The company said this is intended to change the treatment paradigm of several B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes, including in earlier lines of therapy.

Enrollment in the dose-finding portion has begun, but the CRLs indicate that the confirmatory portions of these trials should be underway and that the timelines to completion should be agreed on prior to resubmission, Regeneron said. The company added that it is working closely with the FDA and investigators to bring odronextamab to patients with R/R FL and R/R DLBCL as quickly as possible. The company plans to share updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals said in an interview that it may be the first company to have an accelerated approval application for its cancer drug rebuffed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.

The company once had hoped to win this US clearance for odronextamab in relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) and in R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) by March 31. Last year when Regeneron announced the FDA’s decision to grant priority review for odronextamab, the firm said that the end of this month was the US regulators’ target decision date.

But on March 25, Regeneron said the FDA issued two complete response letters (CRLs) in connection with odronextamab application. It will not approve the experimental medicine at this time.

In the release, Regeneron said the only approvability issue is related to the enrollment status of the confirmatory trials. The letters did not identify issues with the odronextamab clinical efficacy or safety, trial design, labeling, or manufacturing.

“While we acknowledge the general concerns that FDA has about sponsors failing to complete their postmarketing confirmatory trials, the relevant laws and regulatory guidances do not lay out rigid criteria for assessing whether the progress on a confirmatory trial is adequate to allow for an accelerated approval,” Tammy Allen, Regeneron’s director for product and pipeline communications, said in an email. “ And to our knowledge, this is the first time the FDA has issued a CRL for this reason.”

There has been rising concern in recent years about the gap between initial accelerated approvals for medicines and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Thus, a serious knowledge gap arises, often for many years, while patients and physicians use drugs with as yet unproven benefit. Recent studies highlighting this knowledge gap include work from Harvard’s Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) group and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

While Congress has long sought to speed approvals of new drugs, in 2022 lawmakers gave the FDA more clout for efforts to shorten the period of uncertainty between accelerated and traditional approval. Congress added a provision to a large spending package that said the federal government could require a study or studies to be underway prior to approval, or within a specified time period after the date of approval, of the applicable product.

“As this is new territory for us and for industry, we’re committed to working closely with them to address and plan on sharing updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year,” Ms. Allen said.

The FDA generally does not comment on applications under review. In response to a question about Regeneron’s statements, an FDA spokeswoman pointed out by email that the 2022 law had made clear how the agency can decline approval if confirmatory clinical trials are not considered underway prior to approval.

Odronextamab is potentially part of a rapidly advancing field of lymphoma treatments, which include autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy in certain settings. There are severe constraints, though, on CAR-T therapy, including manufacturing delays and treatment-related toxicities. Odronextamab is part of what are called “off-the-shelf” drugs with the same aim as CAR-T. The bispecific antibodies (BsAb) are meant to teach the immune system to fight cancer.

Regeneron said it has been actively enrolling patients in multiple phase 3 trials for odronextamab as part of its OLYMPIA program. The company said this is intended to change the treatment paradigm of several B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes, including in earlier lines of therapy.

Enrollment in the dose-finding portion has begun, but the CRLs indicate that the confirmatory portions of these trials should be underway and that the timelines to completion should be agreed on prior to resubmission, Regeneron said. The company added that it is working closely with the FDA and investigators to bring odronextamab to patients with R/R FL and R/R DLBCL as quickly as possible. The company plans to share updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year.

An advisory panel at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lent support to bids that allow for earlier use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) therapies in treating multiple myeloma, while also calling for clear disclosure to patients of potential risks of these treatments.

The FDA asked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to vote on two separate but similar questions at the March 15 meeting. Much of their discussion centered on higher rates of deaths for patients on the CAR-T therapies during early stages of key studies.

ODAC voted 11-0 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen). J&J is seeking approval for use of the drug for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least one prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), and are refractory to lenalidomide.

ODAC voted 8-3 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, Abecma, Bristol Myers Squibb). The company is seeking approval of the drug for people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

The FDA staff will consider ODAC’s votes and recommendations, but is not bound by them. Janssen’s parent company, J&J, said the FDA’s deadline for deciding on the request to change the cilta-cel label is April 5. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) said there is not a PDUFA deadline at this time for its application.

Both CAR-T treatments currently are approved for RRMM after 4 or more prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, PI and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Last year BMS and Janssen filed their separate applications, both seeking to have their drugs used earlier in the course of RRMM.

Data provided in support of both requests for expanded use raised alarms at the FDA, with more deaths seen in the early stage of testing among patients given the CAR-T drugs compared to those given standard-of-care regimens, the agency staff said.

The application for cilta-cel rests heavily on the data from the CARTITUDE-4 trial. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.4 to 81.1) in the cilta-cel group and 48.6% (95% CI, 41.5 to 55.3) in the standard-care group.

But the FDA staff review focused on worrying signs in the early months of this study. For example, the rate of death in the first 10 months post randomization was higher in the cilta-cel arm (29 of 208; 14%) than in the standard therapy arm (25 of 211; 12%) based on an analysis of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the FDA said.

In its review of the ide-cel application, the FDA staff said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm (95% CI: 11.8, 16.1), and 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9) in the standard of care (SOC) arm.

However, the rate of deaths in the first 9 months post randomization was higher in the ide-cel arm (45/254; 18%) than in the comparator standard-of-care group (15/132; 11%) in the ITT population, the FDA staff said. In the safety analysis population, the rate of deaths from adverse events that occurred within 90 days from starting treatment was 2.7% in the ide-cel arm and 1.6 % in the standard-regimen group.

ODAC ultimately appeared more impressed by data indicating the potential benefit, measured as progression-free survival (PFS), of the two drugs under review, than they were concerned about the issues about early deaths raised by FDA staff.

Panelist Jorge J. Nieva, MD, of the University of Southern California said the CAR-T drugs may present another case of “front-loaded risk” as has been noted for other treatments for serious medical procedures, such as allogeneic transplantations and thoracic surgeries.

In response, Robert Sokolic, MD, the branch chief for malignant hematology at FDA, replied that the data raised concerns that did in fact remind him of these procedures.

“I’m a bone marrow transplant physician. And that’s exactly what I said when I saw these curves. This looks like an allogeneic transplant curve,” Dr. Sokolic said.

But there’s a major difference between that procedure and CAR-T in the context being considered at the ODAC meeting, he said.

With allogeneic transplant, physicians “counsel patients. We ask them to accept an upfront burden of increased mortality, because we know that down the line, overall, there’s a benefit in survival,” Dr. Sokolic said.

In contrast, the primary endpoint in the key studies for expansion of CAR-T drugs was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival as a second endpoint. The FDA staff in briefing documents noted how overall survival, the gold standard in research, delivers far more reliable answers for patients and doctors in assessing treatments.

In the exchange with Dr. Nieva, Dr. Sokolic noted that there’s far less certainty of benefit at this time when asking patients to consider CAR-T earlier in the progression of MM, especially given the safety concerns.

“We know there’s benefit in PFS. We know there’s a safety concern,” Dr. Sokolic said.“That’s not balanced by an overall survival balance on the tail end. It may be when the data are more mature, but it’s not there yet.”
 

Describing Risks to Patients

ODAC panelists also stressed a need to help patients understand what’s known — and not yet known — about these CAR-T therapies. It will be very challenging for patients to understand and interpret the data from key studies on these medicines, said ODAC panelist Susan Lattimore, RN, of Oregon Health & Science University. She suggested the FDA seek labeling that would be “overtly transparent” and use lay terms to describe the potential risks and benefits.

In its presentations to the FDA and ODAC, J&J noted that the COVID pandemic has affected testing and that the rate of deaths flips in time to be higher in the comparator group.

In its briefing document for the meeting, BMS emphasized that most of the patients in the ide-cel arm who died in the first 6 months of its trial did not get the study drug. There were 9 deaths in the standard-regimen arm, or 6.8% of the group, compared with 30, or 11.8% in the ide-cel group.

In the ide-cel arm, the majority of early deaths (17/30; 56.7%) occurred in patients who never received ide-cel treatment, with 13 of those 17 dying from disease progression, the company said in its briefing document. The early death rate among patients who received the allocated study treatment was similar between arms (5.1% in the ide-cel arm vs 6.8% in the standard regimen arm),the company said.

In the staff briefing, the FDA said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm, compared with 4.4 months in the standard of care (SOC) arm. But there was a “clear and persistent increased mortality” for the ide-cel group, compared with the standard regimen arm, with increased rates of death up to 9 months. In addition, the overall survival disadvantage persisted to 15 months after randomization, when the survival curves finally crossed, the FDA staff said in its March 15 presentation.

ODAC Chairman Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, was among the panelists who voted “no” in the ide-cel question. He said the risk-benefit profile of the drug does not appear favorable at this time for expanded use.

“There’s a lot of optimism about moving these therapies earlier in the disease states of multiple myeloma,” Dr. Madan said, calling the PFS data “quite remarkable.

“But for me this data at this level of maturity really didn’t provide convincing evidence that ide-cel earlier had a favorable risk benefit assessment in a proposed indication.”

ODAC panelist Christopher H. Lieu, MD, of the University of Colorado, said he struggled to decide how to vote on the ide-cel question and in the end voted yes.

He said the response to the treatment doesn’t appear to be as durable as hoped, considering the significant burden that CAR-T therapy imposes on patients. However, the PFS data suggest that ide-cel could offer patients with RRMM a chance for significant times off therapy with associated quality of life improvement.

“I do believe that the risk-benefit profile is favorable for this population as a whole,” he said. “But it’s a closer margin than I think we would like and patients will need to have in-depth discussions about the risks and benefits and balance that with the possible benefits with their provider.”

An advisory panel at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lent support to bids that allow for earlier use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) therapies in treating multiple myeloma, while also calling for clear disclosure to patients of potential risks of these treatments.

The FDA asked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to vote on two separate but similar questions at the March 15 meeting. Much of their discussion centered on higher rates of deaths for patients on the CAR-T therapies during early stages of key studies.

ODAC voted 11-0 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen). J&J is seeking approval for use of the drug for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least one prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), and are refractory to lenalidomide.

ODAC voted 8-3 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, Abecma, Bristol Myers Squibb). The company is seeking approval of the drug for people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

The FDA staff will consider ODAC’s votes and recommendations, but is not bound by them. Janssen’s parent company, J&J, said the FDA’s deadline for deciding on the request to change the cilta-cel label is April 5. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) said there is not a PDUFA deadline at this time for its application.

Both CAR-T treatments currently are approved for RRMM after 4 or more prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, PI and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Last year BMS and Janssen filed their separate applications, both seeking to have their drugs used earlier in the course of RRMM.

Data provided in support of both requests for expanded use raised alarms at the FDA, with more deaths seen in the early stage of testing among patients given the CAR-T drugs compared to those given standard-of-care regimens, the agency staff said.

The application for cilta-cel rests heavily on the data from the CARTITUDE-4 trial. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.4 to 81.1) in the cilta-cel group and 48.6% (95% CI, 41.5 to 55.3) in the standard-care group.

But the FDA staff review focused on worrying signs in the early months of this study. For example, the rate of death in the first 10 months post randomization was higher in the cilta-cel arm (29 of 208; 14%) than in the standard therapy arm (25 of 211; 12%) based on an analysis of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the FDA said.

In its review of the ide-cel application, the FDA staff said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm (95% CI: 11.8, 16.1), and 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9) in the standard of care (SOC) arm.

However, the rate of deaths in the first 9 months post randomization was higher in the ide-cel arm (45/254; 18%) than in the comparator standard-of-care group (15/132; 11%) in the ITT population, the FDA staff said. In the safety analysis population, the rate of deaths from adverse events that occurred within 90 days from starting treatment was 2.7% in the ide-cel arm and 1.6 % in the standard-regimen group.

ODAC ultimately appeared more impressed by data indicating the potential benefit, measured as progression-free survival (PFS), of the two drugs under review, than they were concerned about the issues about early deaths raised by FDA staff.

Panelist Jorge J. Nieva, MD, of the University of Southern California said the CAR-T drugs may present another case of “front-loaded risk” as has been noted for other treatments for serious medical procedures, such as allogeneic transplantations and thoracic surgeries.

In response, Robert Sokolic, MD, the branch chief for malignant hematology at FDA, replied that the data raised concerns that did in fact remind him of these procedures.

“I’m a bone marrow transplant physician. And that’s exactly what I said when I saw these curves. This looks like an allogeneic transplant curve,” Dr. Sokolic said.

But there’s a major difference between that procedure and CAR-T in the context being considered at the ODAC meeting, he said.

With allogeneic transplant, physicians “counsel patients. We ask them to accept an upfront burden of increased mortality, because we know that down the line, overall, there’s a benefit in survival,” Dr. Sokolic said.

In contrast, the primary endpoint in the key studies for expansion of CAR-T drugs was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival as a second endpoint. The FDA staff in briefing documents noted how overall survival, the gold standard in research, delivers far more reliable answers for patients and doctors in assessing treatments.

In the exchange with Dr. Nieva, Dr. Sokolic noted that there’s far less certainty of benefit at this time when asking patients to consider CAR-T earlier in the progression of MM, especially given the safety concerns.

“We know there’s benefit in PFS. We know there’s a safety concern,” Dr. Sokolic said.“That’s not balanced by an overall survival balance on the tail end. It may be when the data are more mature, but it’s not there yet.”
 

Describing Risks to Patients

ODAC panelists also stressed a need to help patients understand what’s known — and not yet known — about these CAR-T therapies. It will be very challenging for patients to understand and interpret the data from key studies on these medicines, said ODAC panelist Susan Lattimore, RN, of Oregon Health & Science University. She suggested the FDA seek labeling that would be “overtly transparent” and use lay terms to describe the potential risks and benefits.

In its presentations to the FDA and ODAC, J&J noted that the COVID pandemic has affected testing and that the rate of deaths flips in time to be higher in the comparator group.

In its briefing document for the meeting, BMS emphasized that most of the patients in the ide-cel arm who died in the first 6 months of its trial did not get the study drug. There were 9 deaths in the standard-regimen arm, or 6.8% of the group, compared with 30, or 11.8% in the ide-cel group.

In the ide-cel arm, the majority of early deaths (17/30; 56.7%) occurred in patients who never received ide-cel treatment, with 13 of those 17 dying from disease progression, the company said in its briefing document. The early death rate among patients who received the allocated study treatment was similar between arms (5.1% in the ide-cel arm vs 6.8% in the standard regimen arm),the company said.

In the staff briefing, the FDA said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm, compared with 4.4 months in the standard of care (SOC) arm. But there was a “clear and persistent increased mortality” for the ide-cel group, compared with the standard regimen arm, with increased rates of death up to 9 months. In addition, the overall survival disadvantage persisted to 15 months after randomization, when the survival curves finally crossed, the FDA staff said in its March 15 presentation.

ODAC Chairman Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, was among the panelists who voted “no” in the ide-cel question. He said the risk-benefit profile of the drug does not appear favorable at this time for expanded use.

“There’s a lot of optimism about moving these therapies earlier in the disease states of multiple myeloma,” Dr. Madan said, calling the PFS data “quite remarkable.

“But for me this data at this level of maturity really didn’t provide convincing evidence that ide-cel earlier had a favorable risk benefit assessment in a proposed indication.”

ODAC panelist Christopher H. Lieu, MD, of the University of Colorado, said he struggled to decide how to vote on the ide-cel question and in the end voted yes.

He said the response to the treatment doesn’t appear to be as durable as hoped, considering the significant burden that CAR-T therapy imposes on patients. However, the PFS data suggest that ide-cel could offer patients with RRMM a chance for significant times off therapy with associated quality of life improvement.

“I do believe that the risk-benefit profile is favorable for this population as a whole,” he said. “But it’s a closer margin than I think we would like and patients will need to have in-depth discussions about the risks and benefits and balance that with the possible benefits with their provider.”

An advisory panel at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lent support to bids that allow for earlier use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) therapies in treating multiple myeloma, while also calling for clear disclosure to patients of potential risks of these treatments.

The FDA asked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to vote on two separate but similar questions at the March 15 meeting. Much of their discussion centered on higher rates of deaths for patients on the CAR-T therapies during early stages of key studies.

ODAC voted 11-0 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen). J&J is seeking approval for use of the drug for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least one prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), and are refractory to lenalidomide.

ODAC voted 8-3 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, Abecma, Bristol Myers Squibb). The company is seeking approval of the drug for people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

The FDA staff will consider ODAC’s votes and recommendations, but is not bound by them. Janssen’s parent company, J&J, said the FDA’s deadline for deciding on the request to change the cilta-cel label is April 5. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) said there is not a PDUFA deadline at this time for its application.

Both CAR-T treatments currently are approved for RRMM after 4 or more prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, PI and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Last year BMS and Janssen filed their separate applications, both seeking to have their drugs used earlier in the course of RRMM.

Data provided in support of both requests for expanded use raised alarms at the FDA, with more deaths seen in the early stage of testing among patients given the CAR-T drugs compared to those given standard-of-care regimens, the agency staff said.

The application for cilta-cel rests heavily on the data from the CARTITUDE-4 trial. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.4 to 81.1) in the cilta-cel group and 48.6% (95% CI, 41.5 to 55.3) in the standard-care group.

But the FDA staff review focused on worrying signs in the early months of this study. For example, the rate of death in the first 10 months post randomization was higher in the cilta-cel arm (29 of 208; 14%) than in the standard therapy arm (25 of 211; 12%) based on an analysis of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the FDA said.

In its review of the ide-cel application, the FDA staff said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm (95% CI: 11.8, 16.1), and 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9) in the standard of care (SOC) arm.

However, the rate of deaths in the first 9 months post randomization was higher in the ide-cel arm (45/254; 18%) than in the comparator standard-of-care group (15/132; 11%) in the ITT population, the FDA staff said. In the safety analysis population, the rate of deaths from adverse events that occurred within 90 days from starting treatment was 2.7% in the ide-cel arm and 1.6 % in the standard-regimen group.

ODAC ultimately appeared more impressed by data indicating the potential benefit, measured as progression-free survival (PFS), of the two drugs under review, than they were concerned about the issues about early deaths raised by FDA staff.

Panelist Jorge J. Nieva, MD, of the University of Southern California said the CAR-T drugs may present another case of “front-loaded risk” as has been noted for other treatments for serious medical procedures, such as allogeneic transplantations and thoracic surgeries.

In response, Robert Sokolic, MD, the branch chief for malignant hematology at FDA, replied that the data raised concerns that did in fact remind him of these procedures.

“I’m a bone marrow transplant physician. And that’s exactly what I said when I saw these curves. This looks like an allogeneic transplant curve,” Dr. Sokolic said.

But there’s a major difference between that procedure and CAR-T in the context being considered at the ODAC meeting, he said.

With allogeneic transplant, physicians “counsel patients. We ask them to accept an upfront burden of increased mortality, because we know that down the line, overall, there’s a benefit in survival,” Dr. Sokolic said.

In contrast, the primary endpoint in the key studies for expansion of CAR-T drugs was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival as a second endpoint. The FDA staff in briefing documents noted how overall survival, the gold standard in research, delivers far more reliable answers for patients and doctors in assessing treatments.

In the exchange with Dr. Nieva, Dr. Sokolic noted that there’s far less certainty of benefit at this time when asking patients to consider CAR-T earlier in the progression of MM, especially given the safety concerns.

“We know there’s benefit in PFS. We know there’s a safety concern,” Dr. Sokolic said.“That’s not balanced by an overall survival balance on the tail end. It may be when the data are more mature, but it’s not there yet.”
 

Describing Risks to Patients

ODAC panelists also stressed a need to help patients understand what’s known — and not yet known — about these CAR-T therapies. It will be very challenging for patients to understand and interpret the data from key studies on these medicines, said ODAC panelist Susan Lattimore, RN, of Oregon Health & Science University. She suggested the FDA seek labeling that would be “overtly transparent” and use lay terms to describe the potential risks and benefits.

In its presentations to the FDA and ODAC, J&J noted that the COVID pandemic has affected testing and that the rate of deaths flips in time to be higher in the comparator group.

In its briefing document for the meeting, BMS emphasized that most of the patients in the ide-cel arm who died in the first 6 months of its trial did not get the study drug. There were 9 deaths in the standard-regimen arm, or 6.8% of the group, compared with 30, or 11.8% in the ide-cel group.

In the ide-cel arm, the majority of early deaths (17/30; 56.7%) occurred in patients who never received ide-cel treatment, with 13 of those 17 dying from disease progression, the company said in its briefing document. The early death rate among patients who received the allocated study treatment was similar between arms (5.1% in the ide-cel arm vs 6.8% in the standard regimen arm),the company said.

In the staff briefing, the FDA said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm, compared with 4.4 months in the standard of care (SOC) arm. But there was a “clear and persistent increased mortality” for the ide-cel group, compared with the standard regimen arm, with increased rates of death up to 9 months. In addition, the overall survival disadvantage persisted to 15 months after randomization, when the survival curves finally crossed, the FDA staff said in its March 15 presentation.

ODAC Chairman Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, was among the panelists who voted “no” in the ide-cel question. He said the risk-benefit profile of the drug does not appear favorable at this time for expanded use.

“There’s a lot of optimism about moving these therapies earlier in the disease states of multiple myeloma,” Dr. Madan said, calling the PFS data “quite remarkable.

“But for me this data at this level of maturity really didn’t provide convincing evidence that ide-cel earlier had a favorable risk benefit assessment in a proposed indication.”

ODAC panelist Christopher H. Lieu, MD, of the University of Colorado, said he struggled to decide how to vote on the ide-cel question and in the end voted yes.

He said the response to the treatment doesn’t appear to be as durable as hoped, considering the significant burden that CAR-T therapy imposes on patients. However, the PFS data suggest that ide-cel could offer patients with RRMM a chance for significant times off therapy with associated quality of life improvement.

“I do believe that the risk-benefit profile is favorable for this population as a whole,” he said. “But it’s a closer margin than I think we would like and patients will need to have in-depth discussions about the risks and benefits and balance that with the possible benefits with their provider.”

Primary care clinicians have largely welcomed the arrival of Opill, the first over-the-counter (OTC) birth control pill from Perrigo, which will reach US pharmacy shelves this month. Although the medicine has a long-track record of safe use, physicians and nurse practitioners may want to ready themselves to answer questions from patients about shifting to the option.

The switch to OTC status for the norgestrel-only contraceptive has the support of many physician groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

The end of the prescription-requirement removes a barrier to access for many women, especially those who lack insurance. But it also will take away a chief reason many women in their childbearing years make appointments with doctors, as they will no longer need prescriptions for birth control pills.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, said she is also worried that the availability of an OTC pill will lead to missed opportunities to help patients avoid sexually transmitted diseases. For example, patients can get counseling about the need for testing for sexually transmitted diseases at the start of new relationships during a visit made to obtain a prescription for the pill.

“My hope is that they still follow our recommendations, which is to get tested with every partner,” said Dr. Oelschlager, who cares for many patients in their teens. “Adolescents are at a particularly high risk of infection compared to older ones.”

When clinicians do see patients, they may want to raise the issue of the OTC option and proper use. Patients will need to closely read materials provided for Opill, a step they might skip due to the ready access, according to Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, which scrutinizes the safety of medical products.

“When something is sold over the counter, it’s perceived by individuals as being safe,” Dr. Zuckerman told this news organization. “There’s less concern and a little less interest in reading the instructions and reading the warnings.”
 

Considerations for Safety

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July approved the sales of a daily 0.075 mg norgestrel tablet without prescription. Perrigo told this news organization that it spent the intervening months ensuring retailers and consumers will receive education on the drug.

One of the biggest challenges for people using Opill may be sticking with the dosing schedule, according to Dr. Oelschlager.

“There are going to be people that have a harder time remembering to take a pill every day,” at the same time, said Dr. Oelschlager, who is chair of ACOG’s Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. “We need to watch and see what happens as it becomes more widely available, and people start using it.”

Unexpected vaginal bleeding is the most common adverse event linked to this form of birth control, with over one fifth of participants from one study of the OTC drug reporting this side effect, according to an FDA memo.

“It is more likely to be a tolerability issue rather than a safety issue,” the FDA wrote.

Many prescription of birth control options contain estrogen, which is associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). But Opill contains only norgestrel, a form of progestin, which is not associated with thrombosis. Patients may be more likely to overestimate their potential risks for VTE than to underestimate them, according to Kwuan Paruchabutr, DNP, president of National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health and an assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

“This is a progesterone-only pill: The risk is relatively low” of VTE, Dr. Paruchabutr said.

Clinicians should also take special care with patients who are prescribed drugs for seizures, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and pulmonary hypertension or who are taking supplements containing St John’s wort.

Patients in their childbearing years who take isotretinoin are already expected to use some form of birth control.

“All patients on isotretinoin must be registered in the iPLEDGE program, which mandates monthly contraception counseling and monthly pregnancy tests for persons of childbearing potential,” Terrence A. Cronin, Jr, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, told news organization through email.

Dr. Oelschlager noted that many patients who take isotretinoin may benefit from taking a birth control pill containing estrogen, for which they will need a prescription. At least three pills have an FDA-approved indication for treating moderate acne, including Ortho Tri-Cyclen, Estrostep, and Yaz.

The FDA has posted consumer-friendly information about the OTC pill that clinicians can refer their patients to. For clinicians who want more information, ACOG released a practice advisory about the switch in status for this progestin-only pill.
 

The Cost

While federal laws mandate employer-based and Medicaid plans cover prescription birth control pills for free, the OTC version will carry a cost, according to A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Seven states, including New Mexico and New York, already have laws in effect that require health plans to cover certain OTC contraceptives without a prescription, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit research organization KFF.

Dr. Fendrick said it would be helpful for health plans to offer coverage for the OTC pill without copays even if they are not required to do so.

Priced at about $20 a month, Opill “is likely out of reach for many of the individuals who would most benefit from an OTC option,” Dr. Fendrick told this news organization in an email.

The new pill may be utilized most by those who do not have health insurance or have low incomes and cannot afford to see a doctor for a prescription, according to Sally Rafie, PharmD, a pharmacist specialist at University of California San Diego Health and founder of the Birth Control Pharmacist.

The manufacturer’s suggested retail prices will be $19.99 for a 1-month supply and $49.99 for a 3-month supply. Dublin-based Perrigo said it plans to offer a cost-assistance program for the drug in the coming weeks for people who have low incomes and lack insurance.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care clinicians have largely welcomed the arrival of Opill, the first over-the-counter (OTC) birth control pill from Perrigo, which will reach US pharmacy shelves this month. Although the medicine has a long-track record of safe use, physicians and nurse practitioners may want to ready themselves to answer questions from patients about shifting to the option.

The switch to OTC status for the norgestrel-only contraceptive has the support of many physician groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

The end of the prescription-requirement removes a barrier to access for many women, especially those who lack insurance. But it also will take away a chief reason many women in their childbearing years make appointments with doctors, as they will no longer need prescriptions for birth control pills.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, said she is also worried that the availability of an OTC pill will lead to missed opportunities to help patients avoid sexually transmitted diseases. For example, patients can get counseling about the need for testing for sexually transmitted diseases at the start of new relationships during a visit made to obtain a prescription for the pill.

“My hope is that they still follow our recommendations, which is to get tested with every partner,” said Dr. Oelschlager, who cares for many patients in their teens. “Adolescents are at a particularly high risk of infection compared to older ones.”

When clinicians do see patients, they may want to raise the issue of the OTC option and proper use. Patients will need to closely read materials provided for Opill, a step they might skip due to the ready access, according to Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, which scrutinizes the safety of medical products.

“When something is sold over the counter, it’s perceived by individuals as being safe,” Dr. Zuckerman told this news organization. “There’s less concern and a little less interest in reading the instructions and reading the warnings.”
 

Considerations for Safety

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July approved the sales of a daily 0.075 mg norgestrel tablet without prescription. Perrigo told this news organization that it spent the intervening months ensuring retailers and consumers will receive education on the drug.

One of the biggest challenges for people using Opill may be sticking with the dosing schedule, according to Dr. Oelschlager.

“There are going to be people that have a harder time remembering to take a pill every day,” at the same time, said Dr. Oelschlager, who is chair of ACOG’s Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. “We need to watch and see what happens as it becomes more widely available, and people start using it.”

Unexpected vaginal bleeding is the most common adverse event linked to this form of birth control, with over one fifth of participants from one study of the OTC drug reporting this side effect, according to an FDA memo.

“It is more likely to be a tolerability issue rather than a safety issue,” the FDA wrote.

Many prescription of birth control options contain estrogen, which is associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). But Opill contains only norgestrel, a form of progestin, which is not associated with thrombosis. Patients may be more likely to overestimate their potential risks for VTE than to underestimate them, according to Kwuan Paruchabutr, DNP, president of National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health and an assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

“This is a progesterone-only pill: The risk is relatively low” of VTE, Dr. Paruchabutr said.

Clinicians should also take special care with patients who are prescribed drugs for seizures, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and pulmonary hypertension or who are taking supplements containing St John’s wort.

Patients in their childbearing years who take isotretinoin are already expected to use some form of birth control.

“All patients on isotretinoin must be registered in the iPLEDGE program, which mandates monthly contraception counseling and monthly pregnancy tests for persons of childbearing potential,” Terrence A. Cronin, Jr, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, told news organization through email.

Dr. Oelschlager noted that many patients who take isotretinoin may benefit from taking a birth control pill containing estrogen, for which they will need a prescription. At least three pills have an FDA-approved indication for treating moderate acne, including Ortho Tri-Cyclen, Estrostep, and Yaz.

The FDA has posted consumer-friendly information about the OTC pill that clinicians can refer their patients to. For clinicians who want more information, ACOG released a practice advisory about the switch in status for this progestin-only pill.
 

The Cost

While federal laws mandate employer-based and Medicaid plans cover prescription birth control pills for free, the OTC version will carry a cost, according to A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Seven states, including New Mexico and New York, already have laws in effect that require health plans to cover certain OTC contraceptives without a prescription, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit research organization KFF.

Dr. Fendrick said it would be helpful for health plans to offer coverage for the OTC pill without copays even if they are not required to do so.

Priced at about $20 a month, Opill “is likely out of reach for many of the individuals who would most benefit from an OTC option,” Dr. Fendrick told this news organization in an email.

The new pill may be utilized most by those who do not have health insurance or have low incomes and cannot afford to see a doctor for a prescription, according to Sally Rafie, PharmD, a pharmacist specialist at University of California San Diego Health and founder of the Birth Control Pharmacist.

The manufacturer’s suggested retail prices will be $19.99 for a 1-month supply and $49.99 for a 3-month supply. Dublin-based Perrigo said it plans to offer a cost-assistance program for the drug in the coming weeks for people who have low incomes and lack insurance.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care clinicians have largely welcomed the arrival of Opill, the first over-the-counter (OTC) birth control pill from Perrigo, which will reach US pharmacy shelves this month. Although the medicine has a long-track record of safe use, physicians and nurse practitioners may want to ready themselves to answer questions from patients about shifting to the option.

The switch to OTC status for the norgestrel-only contraceptive has the support of many physician groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

The end of the prescription-requirement removes a barrier to access for many women, especially those who lack insurance. But it also will take away a chief reason many women in their childbearing years make appointments with doctors, as they will no longer need prescriptions for birth control pills.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, said she is also worried that the availability of an OTC pill will lead to missed opportunities to help patients avoid sexually transmitted diseases. For example, patients can get counseling about the need for testing for sexually transmitted diseases at the start of new relationships during a visit made to obtain a prescription for the pill.

“My hope is that they still follow our recommendations, which is to get tested with every partner,” said Dr. Oelschlager, who cares for many patients in their teens. “Adolescents are at a particularly high risk of infection compared to older ones.”

When clinicians do see patients, they may want to raise the issue of the OTC option and proper use. Patients will need to closely read materials provided for Opill, a step they might skip due to the ready access, according to Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, which scrutinizes the safety of medical products.

“When something is sold over the counter, it’s perceived by individuals as being safe,” Dr. Zuckerman told this news organization. “There’s less concern and a little less interest in reading the instructions and reading the warnings.”
 

Considerations for Safety

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July approved the sales of a daily 0.075 mg norgestrel tablet without prescription. Perrigo told this news organization that it spent the intervening months ensuring retailers and consumers will receive education on the drug.

One of the biggest challenges for people using Opill may be sticking with the dosing schedule, according to Dr. Oelschlager.

“There are going to be people that have a harder time remembering to take a pill every day,” at the same time, said Dr. Oelschlager, who is chair of ACOG’s Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. “We need to watch and see what happens as it becomes more widely available, and people start using it.”

Unexpected vaginal bleeding is the most common adverse event linked to this form of birth control, with over one fifth of participants from one study of the OTC drug reporting this side effect, according to an FDA memo.

“It is more likely to be a tolerability issue rather than a safety issue,” the FDA wrote.

Many prescription of birth control options contain estrogen, which is associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). But Opill contains only norgestrel, a form of progestin, which is not associated with thrombosis. Patients may be more likely to overestimate their potential risks for VTE than to underestimate them, according to Kwuan Paruchabutr, DNP, president of National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health and an assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

“This is a progesterone-only pill: The risk is relatively low” of VTE, Dr. Paruchabutr said.

Clinicians should also take special care with patients who are prescribed drugs for seizures, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and pulmonary hypertension or who are taking supplements containing St John’s wort.

Patients in their childbearing years who take isotretinoin are already expected to use some form of birth control.

“All patients on isotretinoin must be registered in the iPLEDGE program, which mandates monthly contraception counseling and monthly pregnancy tests for persons of childbearing potential,” Terrence A. Cronin, Jr, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, told news organization through email.

Dr. Oelschlager noted that many patients who take isotretinoin may benefit from taking a birth control pill containing estrogen, for which they will need a prescription. At least three pills have an FDA-approved indication for treating moderate acne, including Ortho Tri-Cyclen, Estrostep, and Yaz.

The FDA has posted consumer-friendly information about the OTC pill that clinicians can refer their patients to. For clinicians who want more information, ACOG released a practice advisory about the switch in status for this progestin-only pill.
 

The Cost

While federal laws mandate employer-based and Medicaid plans cover prescription birth control pills for free, the OTC version will carry a cost, according to A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Seven states, including New Mexico and New York, already have laws in effect that require health plans to cover certain OTC contraceptives without a prescription, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit research organization KFF.

Dr. Fendrick said it would be helpful for health plans to offer coverage for the OTC pill without copays even if they are not required to do so.

Priced at about $20 a month, Opill “is likely out of reach for many of the individuals who would most benefit from an OTC option,” Dr. Fendrick told this news organization in an email.

The new pill may be utilized most by those who do not have health insurance or have low incomes and cannot afford to see a doctor for a prescription, according to Sally Rafie, PharmD, a pharmacist specialist at University of California San Diego Health and founder of the Birth Control Pharmacist.

The manufacturer’s suggested retail prices will be $19.99 for a 1-month supply and $49.99 for a 3-month supply. Dublin-based Perrigo said it plans to offer a cost-assistance program for the drug in the coming weeks for people who have low incomes and lack insurance.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.