Federal Practitioner

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The FDA has approved a topical gel containing birch triterpenes for the treatment of partial thickness wounds in patients 6 months and older with junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB).

The gel is marketed under the name Filsuvez. It is the first approved treatment for wounds associated with JEB and the second for patients with DEB, following the approval of Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech), a topical gene therapy gel, in May 2023.

First developed by Amryt Pharma and intended for home use, Filsuvez is now marketed by Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, which acquired Amryt in January 2023. The gel is applied topically to the wound at each dressing change.

The approval of Filsuvez is based on results from the Efficacy and Safety Study of Oleogel-S10 in Epidermolysis Bullosa (EASE), a randomized, placebo-controlled study of 223 people, the largest-ever phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of EB, according to the Chiesi news release. The gel was well tolerated and met the primary endpoint with statistical significance, with 41.3% of patients achieving first complete target wound closure within 45 days (compared with 28.9% on placebo).

“I am so excited to say that this is another hurdle cleared and milestone achieved for the EB Community,” Brett Kopelan, executive director at debra of America said in a blog post. “We are now on the road to being able to treat EB more effectively, and to make the worst disease you’ve never heard of chronic, but livable, by making use of multiple therapeutic options in conjunction with each other.”

The FDA has approved a topical gel containing birch triterpenes for the treatment of partial thickness wounds in patients 6 months and older with junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB).

The gel is marketed under the name Filsuvez. It is the first approved treatment for wounds associated with JEB and the second for patients with DEB, following the approval of Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech), a topical gene therapy gel, in May 2023.

First developed by Amryt Pharma and intended for home use, Filsuvez is now marketed by Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, which acquired Amryt in January 2023. The gel is applied topically to the wound at each dressing change.

The approval of Filsuvez is based on results from the Efficacy and Safety Study of Oleogel-S10 in Epidermolysis Bullosa (EASE), a randomized, placebo-controlled study of 223 people, the largest-ever phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of EB, according to the Chiesi news release. The gel was well tolerated and met the primary endpoint with statistical significance, with 41.3% of patients achieving first complete target wound closure within 45 days (compared with 28.9% on placebo).

“I am so excited to say that this is another hurdle cleared and milestone achieved for the EB Community,” Brett Kopelan, executive director at debra of America said in a blog post. “We are now on the road to being able to treat EB more effectively, and to make the worst disease you’ve never heard of chronic, but livable, by making use of multiple therapeutic options in conjunction with each other.”

The FDA has approved a topical gel containing birch triterpenes for the treatment of partial thickness wounds in patients 6 months and older with junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB).

The gel is marketed under the name Filsuvez. It is the first approved treatment for wounds associated with JEB and the second for patients with DEB, following the approval of Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech), a topical gene therapy gel, in May 2023.

First developed by Amryt Pharma and intended for home use, Filsuvez is now marketed by Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, which acquired Amryt in January 2023. The gel is applied topically to the wound at each dressing change.

The approval of Filsuvez is based on results from the Efficacy and Safety Study of Oleogel-S10 in Epidermolysis Bullosa (EASE), a randomized, placebo-controlled study of 223 people, the largest-ever phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of EB, according to the Chiesi news release. The gel was well tolerated and met the primary endpoint with statistical significance, with 41.3% of patients achieving first complete target wound closure within 45 days (compared with 28.9% on placebo).

“I am so excited to say that this is another hurdle cleared and milestone achieved for the EB Community,” Brett Kopelan, executive director at debra of America said in a blog post. “We are now on the road to being able to treat EB more effectively, and to make the worst disease you’ve never heard of chronic, but livable, by making use of multiple therapeutic options in conjunction with each other.”

SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have likely solved the key problem with using olanzapine to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients.

Although it’s highly effective in combination with standard antiemetic therapy, olanzapine at the standard dose of 10 mg makes people too drowsy. “This has prevented its widespread use in clinical practice,” medical oncologist Jyoti Bajpai, DM, of Tata Memorial Cancer Centre, Mumbai, India, explained at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

She and her colleagues had a simple idea: Reduce the dose to 2.5 mg instead of 10 mg to prevent the problem. In a randomized trial with 267 patients that Dr. Bajpai presented at the meeting, they found that the lower dose was just as effective for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and it greatly reduced daytime somnolence.

“This merits consideration as an antiemetic regimen of choice for highly emetogenic chemotherapy.” The findings are “practice changing,” Dr. Bajpai, the lead investigator, said.

Laura Huppert, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wasn’t surprised by the finding.

She said she and her colleagues at UCSF use a lot of olanzapine for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Like the team in India, they have found that 2.5 mg is effective and causes far less sleepiness. Some patients require 5 mg, but the full 10-mg dose is rarely needed.

Although the approach is familiar at UCSF, Dr. Huppert said she doesn’t think a lot of oncologists outside of academic centers know that olanzapine is “really helpful” and that “you don’t need a high dose.” It’s “a very good clinical pearl” and “definitely a new message for some,” she said in an interview.

Over 90% of the subjects in the study were women with breast cancer. Other cancers included sarcoma, germ cell tumors, and head and neck cancer. Subjects were scheduled for their first chemotherapy session with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and high-dose cisplatin.

The trial randomized 135 patients to 10 mg of olanzapine and 132 to 2.5mg for 5 days, starting the day of their session. They were also on standard triple-antiemetic therapy (selective serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and single-dose dexamethasone).

There were no significant differences between the two arms regarding nausea and vomiting, which patients tracked in daily journals using symptom severity and visual analog scales.

For instance, 44.7% in the 2.5-mg arm and 43.7% in the 10-mg arm reported no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and no or only mild nausea (P = .87). Results were similar in the first 24 hours as well as on subsequent days.

There was also no difference in the proportion of patients who did have an emetic episode or needed rescue medication: 49.2% in the 2.5-mg arm versus 48.9% with 10 mg (P = .954).

Where the two groups split was on the incidence of daytime somnolence, which was reported by 65.2% of patients in the low-dose arm but 89.6% in the standard-dose group (P < .001). During the first 24 hours, 4.5% of low-dose patients reported severe somnolence versus 40% with 10-mg dosing (P < .001).

The overall incidence declined over the remaining study days, but the differences between the two groups were comparable. On day 5, for instance, 0.8% of low-dose patients but 8.1% of standard-dose patients reported severe somnolence (P = .004).

Low-dose patients also reported less appetite suppression.

The work was supported by the Progressive Ladies Welfare Association. Dr. Bajpai didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Huppert is an adviser for AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have likely solved the key problem with using olanzapine to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients.

Although it’s highly effective in combination with standard antiemetic therapy, olanzapine at the standard dose of 10 mg makes people too drowsy. “This has prevented its widespread use in clinical practice,” medical oncologist Jyoti Bajpai, DM, of Tata Memorial Cancer Centre, Mumbai, India, explained at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

She and her colleagues had a simple idea: Reduce the dose to 2.5 mg instead of 10 mg to prevent the problem. In a randomized trial with 267 patients that Dr. Bajpai presented at the meeting, they found that the lower dose was just as effective for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and it greatly reduced daytime somnolence.

“This merits consideration as an antiemetic regimen of choice for highly emetogenic chemotherapy.” The findings are “practice changing,” Dr. Bajpai, the lead investigator, said.

Laura Huppert, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wasn’t surprised by the finding.

She said she and her colleagues at UCSF use a lot of olanzapine for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Like the team in India, they have found that 2.5 mg is effective and causes far less sleepiness. Some patients require 5 mg, but the full 10-mg dose is rarely needed.

Although the approach is familiar at UCSF, Dr. Huppert said she doesn’t think a lot of oncologists outside of academic centers know that olanzapine is “really helpful” and that “you don’t need a high dose.” It’s “a very good clinical pearl” and “definitely a new message for some,” she said in an interview.

Over 90% of the subjects in the study were women with breast cancer. Other cancers included sarcoma, germ cell tumors, and head and neck cancer. Subjects were scheduled for their first chemotherapy session with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and high-dose cisplatin.

The trial randomized 135 patients to 10 mg of olanzapine and 132 to 2.5mg for 5 days, starting the day of their session. They were also on standard triple-antiemetic therapy (selective serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and single-dose dexamethasone).

There were no significant differences between the two arms regarding nausea and vomiting, which patients tracked in daily journals using symptom severity and visual analog scales.

For instance, 44.7% in the 2.5-mg arm and 43.7% in the 10-mg arm reported no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and no or only mild nausea (P = .87). Results were similar in the first 24 hours as well as on subsequent days.

There was also no difference in the proportion of patients who did have an emetic episode or needed rescue medication: 49.2% in the 2.5-mg arm versus 48.9% with 10 mg (P = .954).

Where the two groups split was on the incidence of daytime somnolence, which was reported by 65.2% of patients in the low-dose arm but 89.6% in the standard-dose group (P < .001). During the first 24 hours, 4.5% of low-dose patients reported severe somnolence versus 40% with 10-mg dosing (P < .001).

The overall incidence declined over the remaining study days, but the differences between the two groups were comparable. On day 5, for instance, 0.8% of low-dose patients but 8.1% of standard-dose patients reported severe somnolence (P = .004).

Low-dose patients also reported less appetite suppression.

The work was supported by the Progressive Ladies Welfare Association. Dr. Bajpai didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Huppert is an adviser for AstraZeneca.

SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have likely solved the key problem with using olanzapine to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients.

Although it’s highly effective in combination with standard antiemetic therapy, olanzapine at the standard dose of 10 mg makes people too drowsy. “This has prevented its widespread use in clinical practice,” medical oncologist Jyoti Bajpai, DM, of Tata Memorial Cancer Centre, Mumbai, India, explained at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

She and her colleagues had a simple idea: Reduce the dose to 2.5 mg instead of 10 mg to prevent the problem. In a randomized trial with 267 patients that Dr. Bajpai presented at the meeting, they found that the lower dose was just as effective for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and it greatly reduced daytime somnolence.

“This merits consideration as an antiemetic regimen of choice for highly emetogenic chemotherapy.” The findings are “practice changing,” Dr. Bajpai, the lead investigator, said.

Laura Huppert, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wasn’t surprised by the finding.

She said she and her colleagues at UCSF use a lot of olanzapine for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Like the team in India, they have found that 2.5 mg is effective and causes far less sleepiness. Some patients require 5 mg, but the full 10-mg dose is rarely needed.

Although the approach is familiar at UCSF, Dr. Huppert said she doesn’t think a lot of oncologists outside of academic centers know that olanzapine is “really helpful” and that “you don’t need a high dose.” It’s “a very good clinical pearl” and “definitely a new message for some,” she said in an interview.

Over 90% of the subjects in the study were women with breast cancer. Other cancers included sarcoma, germ cell tumors, and head and neck cancer. Subjects were scheduled for their first chemotherapy session with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and high-dose cisplatin.

The trial randomized 135 patients to 10 mg of olanzapine and 132 to 2.5mg for 5 days, starting the day of their session. They were also on standard triple-antiemetic therapy (selective serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and single-dose dexamethasone).

There were no significant differences between the two arms regarding nausea and vomiting, which patients tracked in daily journals using symptom severity and visual analog scales.

For instance, 44.7% in the 2.5-mg arm and 43.7% in the 10-mg arm reported no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and no or only mild nausea (P = .87). Results were similar in the first 24 hours as well as on subsequent days.

There was also no difference in the proportion of patients who did have an emetic episode or needed rescue medication: 49.2% in the 2.5-mg arm versus 48.9% with 10 mg (P = .954).

Where the two groups split was on the incidence of daytime somnolence, which was reported by 65.2% of patients in the low-dose arm but 89.6% in the standard-dose group (P < .001). During the first 24 hours, 4.5% of low-dose patients reported severe somnolence versus 40% with 10-mg dosing (P < .001).

The overall incidence declined over the remaining study days, but the differences between the two groups were comparable. On day 5, for instance, 0.8% of low-dose patients but 8.1% of standard-dose patients reported severe somnolence (P = .004).

Low-dose patients also reported less appetite suppression.

The work was supported by the Progressive Ladies Welfare Association. Dr. Bajpai didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Huppert is an adviser for AstraZeneca.

Erinn Maury, MD, knew Remicade wasn’t the right drug for Patti Schulte, a patient with rheumatoid arthritis the physician saw at her Millersville, Maryland, practice. Schulte’s swollen, painful joints hadn’t responded to Enbrel or Humira, two drugs in the same class.

But the insurer insisted, so Schulte went on Remicade. It didn’t work either.

What’s more, Schulte suffered a severe allergic reaction to the infusion therapy, requiring a heavy dose of prednisone, a steroid with grave side effects if used at high doses for too long.

After 18 months, her insurer finally approved Maury’s drug of choice, Orencia. By then, Schulte’s vertebrae, weakened by prednisone, had started cracking. She was only 60.

Schulte’s story of pain, drug-hopping, and insurance meddling is all too common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, who often cycle agonizingly through half a dozen drugs in search of one that provides a measure of relief. It’s also a story of how doctors are steered by pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen of the drug market — as well as by insurers.

Once people with inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis reach a certain stage, the first prescription offered is typically Humira, the best-selling drug in history, and part of a class known as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or TNFis, which fail to significantly help about half of the patients who take it.

“We practice rheumatology without any help,” said Vibeke Strand, a rheumatologist and adjunct clinical professor at Stanford. She bemoaned the lack of tools available to choose the right drug while bristling at corporate intervention in the decision. “We are told by the insurer what to prescribe to the patient. After they fail methotrexate, it’s a TNF inhibitor, almost always Humira. And that’s not OK.”

If there’s a shred of hope in this story, it’s that a blood test, PrismRA, may herald an era of improved care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions. But first, it must be embraced by insurers.

PrismRA employs a predictive model that combines clinical factors, blood tests, and 19 gene patterns to identify the roughly 60% of patients who are very unlikely to respond to a TNFi drug.

Over the past 25 years, drug companies have introduced five new classes of autoimmune drugs. TNFis were the first to market, starting in the late 1990s.

Some 1.3 million Americans have rheumatoid arthritis, a disease in which a person’s immune system attacks their joints, causing crippling pain and, if improperly treated, disfigurement. The newer drugs, mostly so-called biologics, are also used by some of the 25 million or more Americans with other autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, Crohn’s disease, and psoriasis. Typically costing tens of thousands of dollars annually, the drugs are prescribed after a patient fails to respond to older, cheaper drugs like methotrexate.

Until recently, rheumatologists have had few ways to predict which of the new drugs would work best on which patients. Often, “it’s a coin flip whether I prescribe drug A or B,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

Yet about 90% of the patients who are given one of these advanced drugs start on a TNFi, although there’s often no reason to think a TNFi will work better than another type.

Under these puzzling circumstances, it’s often the insurer rather than the doctor who chooses the patient’s drug. Insurers lean toward TNFis such as adalimumab, commonly sold as brand name Humira, in part because they get large rebates from manufacturers for using them. Although the size of such payments is a trade secret, AbbVie is said to be offering rebates to insurers of up to 60% of Humira’s price. That has enabled it to control 98.5% of the US adalimumab market, even though it has eight biosimilar competitors.

PrismRA’s developer, Scipher Medicine, has provided more than 26,000 test results, rarely covered by insurance. But on October 15, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid began reimbursing for the test, and its use is expected to rise. At least two other companies are developing drug-matching tests for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Although critics say PrismRA is not always useful, it is likely to be the first in a series of diagnostics anticipated over the next decade that could reduce the time that patients with autoimmune disease suffer on the wrong drug.

Academics, small biotechs, and large pharmaceutical companies are investing in methods to distinguish the biological pathways involved in these diseases and the best way to treat each one. This approach, called precision medicine, has existed for years in cancer medicine, in which it’s routine to test the genetics of patients’ tumors to determine the appropriate drug treatment.

“You wouldn’t give Herceptin to a breast cancer patient without knowing whether her tumor was HER2-positive,” said Costantino Pitzalis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the William Harvey Research Institute in London, England. He was speaking before a well-attended session at an American College of Rheumatology conference in San Diego in November. “Why do we not use biopsies or seek molecular markers in rheumatoid arthritis?”

It’s not only patients and doctors who have a stake in which drugs work best for a given person.

When Remicade failed and Schulte waited for the insurer to approve Orencia, she insisted on keeping her job as an accountant. But as her prednisone-related spinal problems worsened, Schulte was forced to retire, go on Medicaid, and seek disability, something she had always sworn to avoid.

Now taxpayers, rather than the insurer, are covering Schulte’s medical bills, Dr. Maury noted.

Precision medicine hasn’t seemed like a priority for large makers of autoimmune drugs, which presumably have some knowledge of which patients are most likely to benefit from their drugs, because they have tested and sold millions of doses over the years. By offering rebate incentives to insurers, companies like AbbVie, which makes Humira, can guarantee theirs are the drugs of choice with insurers.

“If you were AbbVie,” Dr. Curtis said, “why would you ever want to publish data showing who’s not going to do well on your drug, if, in the absence of the test, everyone will start with your drug first?”

What Testing Could Do

Medicare and commercial insurers haven’t yet set a price for PrismRA, but it could save insurers thousands of dollars a year for each patient it helps, according to Krishna Patel, PharmD, Scipher’s associate director of medical affairs.

“If the test cost $750, I still only need it once, and it costs less than a month of whatever drug is not going to work very well for you,” said Dr. Curtis, a coauthor of some studies of the test. “The economics of a biomarker that’s anything but worthless is pretty favorable because our biologics and targeted drugs are so expensive.”

Patients are enthusiastic about the test because so many have had to take TNFis that didn’t work. Many insurers require patients to try a second TNFi and sometimes a third.

Jen Weaver, a patient advocate and mother of three, got little benefit from hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and Orencia, a non-TNFi biologic therapy, before finding some relief in another, Actemra. But she was taken off that drug when her white blood cells plunged, and the next three drugs she tried — all TNFis — caused allergic reactions, culminating with an outbreak of pus-filled sores. Another drug, Otezla, eventually seemed to help heal the sores, and she’s been stable on it since in combination with methotrexate, Ms. Weaver said.

“What is needed is to substantially shorten this trial-and-error period for patients,” said Shilpa Venkatachalam, PhD, herself a patient and the director of research operations at the Global Healthy Living Foundation. “There’s a lot of anxiety and frustration, weeks in pain wondering whether a drug is going to work for you and what to do if it doesn’t.” A survey by her group found that 91% of patients worried their medications would stop working. And there is evidence that the longer it takes to resolve arthritis symptoms, the less chance they will ever stop.

How insurers will respond to the availability of tests isn’t clear, partly because the arrival of new biosimilar drugs — essentially generic versions — is making TNFis cheaper for insurance plans. While Humira still dominates, AbbVie has increased rebates to insurers, in effect lowering its cost. Lower prices make the PrismRA test less appealing to insurers because widespread use of the test could cut TNFi prescriptions by up to a third.

However, rheumatologist John B. Boone, MD, in Louisville, Kentucky, found to his surprise that insurers mostly accepted alternative prescriptions for 41 patients whom the test showed unlikely to respond to TNFis as part of a clinical trial. Dr. Boone receives consulting fees from Scipher.

Although the test didn’t guarantee good outcomes, he said, the few patients given TNFis despite the test results almost all did poorly on that regimen.

Scientists from AbbVie, which makes several rheumatology drugs in addition to Humira, presented a study at the San Diego conference examining biomarkers that might show which patients would respond to Rinvoq, a new immune-suppressing drug in a class known as the JAK inhibitors. When asked about its use of precision medicine, AbbVie declined to comment.

Over two decades, Humira has been a blockbuster drug for AbbVie. The company sold more than $3.5 billion worth of Humira in the third quarter of 2023, 36% less than a year ago. Sales of Rinvoq, which AbbVie is marketing as a treatment for patients failed by Humira and its class, jumped 60% to $1.1 billion.

What Patients Want

Shannan O’Hara-Levi, a 38-year-old in Monroe, New York, has been on scores of drugs and supplements since being diagnosed with juvenile arthritis at age 3. She’s been nauseated, fatigued, and short of breath and has suffered allergic reactions, but she says the worst part of it was finding a drug that worked and then losing access because of insurance. This happened shortly after she gave birth to a daughter in 2022 and then endured intense joint pain.

“If I could take a blood test that tells me not to waste months or years of my life — absolutely,” she said. “If I could have started my current drug last fall and saved many months of not being able to engage with my baby on the floor — absolutely.”
 

This article originally appeared on KFFHealthNews.org. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Erinn Maury, MD, knew Remicade wasn’t the right drug for Patti Schulte, a patient with rheumatoid arthritis the physician saw at her Millersville, Maryland, practice. Schulte’s swollen, painful joints hadn’t responded to Enbrel or Humira, two drugs in the same class.

But the insurer insisted, so Schulte went on Remicade. It didn’t work either.

What’s more, Schulte suffered a severe allergic reaction to the infusion therapy, requiring a heavy dose of prednisone, a steroid with grave side effects if used at high doses for too long.

After 18 months, her insurer finally approved Maury’s drug of choice, Orencia. By then, Schulte’s vertebrae, weakened by prednisone, had started cracking. She was only 60.

Schulte’s story of pain, drug-hopping, and insurance meddling is all too common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, who often cycle agonizingly through half a dozen drugs in search of one that provides a measure of relief. It’s also a story of how doctors are steered by pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen of the drug market — as well as by insurers.

Once people with inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis reach a certain stage, the first prescription offered is typically Humira, the best-selling drug in history, and part of a class known as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or TNFis, which fail to significantly help about half of the patients who take it.

“We practice rheumatology without any help,” said Vibeke Strand, a rheumatologist and adjunct clinical professor at Stanford. She bemoaned the lack of tools available to choose the right drug while bristling at corporate intervention in the decision. “We are told by the insurer what to prescribe to the patient. After they fail methotrexate, it’s a TNF inhibitor, almost always Humira. And that’s not OK.”

If there’s a shred of hope in this story, it’s that a blood test, PrismRA, may herald an era of improved care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions. But first, it must be embraced by insurers.

PrismRA employs a predictive model that combines clinical factors, blood tests, and 19 gene patterns to identify the roughly 60% of patients who are very unlikely to respond to a TNFi drug.

Over the past 25 years, drug companies have introduced five new classes of autoimmune drugs. TNFis were the first to market, starting in the late 1990s.

Some 1.3 million Americans have rheumatoid arthritis, a disease in which a person’s immune system attacks their joints, causing crippling pain and, if improperly treated, disfigurement. The newer drugs, mostly so-called biologics, are also used by some of the 25 million or more Americans with other autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, Crohn’s disease, and psoriasis. Typically costing tens of thousands of dollars annually, the drugs are prescribed after a patient fails to respond to older, cheaper drugs like methotrexate.

Until recently, rheumatologists have had few ways to predict which of the new drugs would work best on which patients. Often, “it’s a coin flip whether I prescribe drug A or B,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

Yet about 90% of the patients who are given one of these advanced drugs start on a TNFi, although there’s often no reason to think a TNFi will work better than another type.

Under these puzzling circumstances, it’s often the insurer rather than the doctor who chooses the patient’s drug. Insurers lean toward TNFis such as adalimumab, commonly sold as brand name Humira, in part because they get large rebates from manufacturers for using them. Although the size of such payments is a trade secret, AbbVie is said to be offering rebates to insurers of up to 60% of Humira’s price. That has enabled it to control 98.5% of the US adalimumab market, even though it has eight biosimilar competitors.

PrismRA’s developer, Scipher Medicine, has provided more than 26,000 test results, rarely covered by insurance. But on October 15, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid began reimbursing for the test, and its use is expected to rise. At least two other companies are developing drug-matching tests for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Although critics say PrismRA is not always useful, it is likely to be the first in a series of diagnostics anticipated over the next decade that could reduce the time that patients with autoimmune disease suffer on the wrong drug.

Academics, small biotechs, and large pharmaceutical companies are investing in methods to distinguish the biological pathways involved in these diseases and the best way to treat each one. This approach, called precision medicine, has existed for years in cancer medicine, in which it’s routine to test the genetics of patients’ tumors to determine the appropriate drug treatment.

“You wouldn’t give Herceptin to a breast cancer patient without knowing whether her tumor was HER2-positive,” said Costantino Pitzalis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the William Harvey Research Institute in London, England. He was speaking before a well-attended session at an American College of Rheumatology conference in San Diego in November. “Why do we not use biopsies or seek molecular markers in rheumatoid arthritis?”

It’s not only patients and doctors who have a stake in which drugs work best for a given person.

When Remicade failed and Schulte waited for the insurer to approve Orencia, she insisted on keeping her job as an accountant. But as her prednisone-related spinal problems worsened, Schulte was forced to retire, go on Medicaid, and seek disability, something she had always sworn to avoid.

Now taxpayers, rather than the insurer, are covering Schulte’s medical bills, Dr. Maury noted.

Precision medicine hasn’t seemed like a priority for large makers of autoimmune drugs, which presumably have some knowledge of which patients are most likely to benefit from their drugs, because they have tested and sold millions of doses over the years. By offering rebate incentives to insurers, companies like AbbVie, which makes Humira, can guarantee theirs are the drugs of choice with insurers.

“If you were AbbVie,” Dr. Curtis said, “why would you ever want to publish data showing who’s not going to do well on your drug, if, in the absence of the test, everyone will start with your drug first?”

What Testing Could Do

Medicare and commercial insurers haven’t yet set a price for PrismRA, but it could save insurers thousands of dollars a year for each patient it helps, according to Krishna Patel, PharmD, Scipher’s associate director of medical affairs.

“If the test cost $750, I still only need it once, and it costs less than a month of whatever drug is not going to work very well for you,” said Dr. Curtis, a coauthor of some studies of the test. “The economics of a biomarker that’s anything but worthless is pretty favorable because our biologics and targeted drugs are so expensive.”

Patients are enthusiastic about the test because so many have had to take TNFis that didn’t work. Many insurers require patients to try a second TNFi and sometimes a third.

Jen Weaver, a patient advocate and mother of three, got little benefit from hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and Orencia, a non-TNFi biologic therapy, before finding some relief in another, Actemra. But she was taken off that drug when her white blood cells plunged, and the next three drugs she tried — all TNFis — caused allergic reactions, culminating with an outbreak of pus-filled sores. Another drug, Otezla, eventually seemed to help heal the sores, and she’s been stable on it since in combination with methotrexate, Ms. Weaver said.

“What is needed is to substantially shorten this trial-and-error period for patients,” said Shilpa Venkatachalam, PhD, herself a patient and the director of research operations at the Global Healthy Living Foundation. “There’s a lot of anxiety and frustration, weeks in pain wondering whether a drug is going to work for you and what to do if it doesn’t.” A survey by her group found that 91% of patients worried their medications would stop working. And there is evidence that the longer it takes to resolve arthritis symptoms, the less chance they will ever stop.

How insurers will respond to the availability of tests isn’t clear, partly because the arrival of new biosimilar drugs — essentially generic versions — is making TNFis cheaper for insurance plans. While Humira still dominates, AbbVie has increased rebates to insurers, in effect lowering its cost. Lower prices make the PrismRA test less appealing to insurers because widespread use of the test could cut TNFi prescriptions by up to a third.

However, rheumatologist John B. Boone, MD, in Louisville, Kentucky, found to his surprise that insurers mostly accepted alternative prescriptions for 41 patients whom the test showed unlikely to respond to TNFis as part of a clinical trial. Dr. Boone receives consulting fees from Scipher.

Although the test didn’t guarantee good outcomes, he said, the few patients given TNFis despite the test results almost all did poorly on that regimen.

Scientists from AbbVie, which makes several rheumatology drugs in addition to Humira, presented a study at the San Diego conference examining biomarkers that might show which patients would respond to Rinvoq, a new immune-suppressing drug in a class known as the JAK inhibitors. When asked about its use of precision medicine, AbbVie declined to comment.

Over two decades, Humira has been a blockbuster drug for AbbVie. The company sold more than $3.5 billion worth of Humira in the third quarter of 2023, 36% less than a year ago. Sales of Rinvoq, which AbbVie is marketing as a treatment for patients failed by Humira and its class, jumped 60% to $1.1 billion.

What Patients Want

Shannan O’Hara-Levi, a 38-year-old in Monroe, New York, has been on scores of drugs and supplements since being diagnosed with juvenile arthritis at age 3. She’s been nauseated, fatigued, and short of breath and has suffered allergic reactions, but she says the worst part of it was finding a drug that worked and then losing access because of insurance. This happened shortly after she gave birth to a daughter in 2022 and then endured intense joint pain.

“If I could take a blood test that tells me not to waste months or years of my life — absolutely,” she said. “If I could have started my current drug last fall and saved many months of not being able to engage with my baby on the floor — absolutely.”
 

This article originally appeared on KFFHealthNews.org. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Erinn Maury, MD, knew Remicade wasn’t the right drug for Patti Schulte, a patient with rheumatoid arthritis the physician saw at her Millersville, Maryland, practice. Schulte’s swollen, painful joints hadn’t responded to Enbrel or Humira, two drugs in the same class.

But the insurer insisted, so Schulte went on Remicade. It didn’t work either.

What’s more, Schulte suffered a severe allergic reaction to the infusion therapy, requiring a heavy dose of prednisone, a steroid with grave side effects if used at high doses for too long.

After 18 months, her insurer finally approved Maury’s drug of choice, Orencia. By then, Schulte’s vertebrae, weakened by prednisone, had started cracking. She was only 60.

Schulte’s story of pain, drug-hopping, and insurance meddling is all too common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, who often cycle agonizingly through half a dozen drugs in search of one that provides a measure of relief. It’s also a story of how doctors are steered by pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen of the drug market — as well as by insurers.

Once people with inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis reach a certain stage, the first prescription offered is typically Humira, the best-selling drug in history, and part of a class known as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or TNFis, which fail to significantly help about half of the patients who take it.

“We practice rheumatology without any help,” said Vibeke Strand, a rheumatologist and adjunct clinical professor at Stanford. She bemoaned the lack of tools available to choose the right drug while bristling at corporate intervention in the decision. “We are told by the insurer what to prescribe to the patient. After they fail methotrexate, it’s a TNF inhibitor, almost always Humira. And that’s not OK.”

If there’s a shred of hope in this story, it’s that a blood test, PrismRA, may herald an era of improved care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions. But first, it must be embraced by insurers.

PrismRA employs a predictive model that combines clinical factors, blood tests, and 19 gene patterns to identify the roughly 60% of patients who are very unlikely to respond to a TNFi drug.

Over the past 25 years, drug companies have introduced five new classes of autoimmune drugs. TNFis were the first to market, starting in the late 1990s.

Some 1.3 million Americans have rheumatoid arthritis, a disease in which a person’s immune system attacks their joints, causing crippling pain and, if improperly treated, disfigurement. The newer drugs, mostly so-called biologics, are also used by some of the 25 million or more Americans with other autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, Crohn’s disease, and psoriasis. Typically costing tens of thousands of dollars annually, the drugs are prescribed after a patient fails to respond to older, cheaper drugs like methotrexate.

Until recently, rheumatologists have had few ways to predict which of the new drugs would work best on which patients. Often, “it’s a coin flip whether I prescribe drug A or B,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

Yet about 90% of the patients who are given one of these advanced drugs start on a TNFi, although there’s often no reason to think a TNFi will work better than another type.

Under these puzzling circumstances, it’s often the insurer rather than the doctor who chooses the patient’s drug. Insurers lean toward TNFis such as adalimumab, commonly sold as brand name Humira, in part because they get large rebates from manufacturers for using them. Although the size of such payments is a trade secret, AbbVie is said to be offering rebates to insurers of up to 60% of Humira’s price. That has enabled it to control 98.5% of the US adalimumab market, even though it has eight biosimilar competitors.

PrismRA’s developer, Scipher Medicine, has provided more than 26,000 test results, rarely covered by insurance. But on October 15, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid began reimbursing for the test, and its use is expected to rise. At least two other companies are developing drug-matching tests for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Although critics say PrismRA is not always useful, it is likely to be the first in a series of diagnostics anticipated over the next decade that could reduce the time that patients with autoimmune disease suffer on the wrong drug.

Academics, small biotechs, and large pharmaceutical companies are investing in methods to distinguish the biological pathways involved in these diseases and the best way to treat each one. This approach, called precision medicine, has existed for years in cancer medicine, in which it’s routine to test the genetics of patients’ tumors to determine the appropriate drug treatment.

“You wouldn’t give Herceptin to a breast cancer patient without knowing whether her tumor was HER2-positive,” said Costantino Pitzalis, MD, a rheumatology professor at the William Harvey Research Institute in London, England. He was speaking before a well-attended session at an American College of Rheumatology conference in San Diego in November. “Why do we not use biopsies or seek molecular markers in rheumatoid arthritis?”

It’s not only patients and doctors who have a stake in which drugs work best for a given person.

When Remicade failed and Schulte waited for the insurer to approve Orencia, she insisted on keeping her job as an accountant. But as her prednisone-related spinal problems worsened, Schulte was forced to retire, go on Medicaid, and seek disability, something she had always sworn to avoid.

Now taxpayers, rather than the insurer, are covering Schulte’s medical bills, Dr. Maury noted.

Precision medicine hasn’t seemed like a priority for large makers of autoimmune drugs, which presumably have some knowledge of which patients are most likely to benefit from their drugs, because they have tested and sold millions of doses over the years. By offering rebate incentives to insurers, companies like AbbVie, which makes Humira, can guarantee theirs are the drugs of choice with insurers.

“If you were AbbVie,” Dr. Curtis said, “why would you ever want to publish data showing who’s not going to do well on your drug, if, in the absence of the test, everyone will start with your drug first?”

What Testing Could Do

Medicare and commercial insurers haven’t yet set a price for PrismRA, but it could save insurers thousands of dollars a year for each patient it helps, according to Krishna Patel, PharmD, Scipher’s associate director of medical affairs.

“If the test cost $750, I still only need it once, and it costs less than a month of whatever drug is not going to work very well for you,” said Dr. Curtis, a coauthor of some studies of the test. “The economics of a biomarker that’s anything but worthless is pretty favorable because our biologics and targeted drugs are so expensive.”

Patients are enthusiastic about the test because so many have had to take TNFis that didn’t work. Many insurers require patients to try a second TNFi and sometimes a third.

Jen Weaver, a patient advocate and mother of three, got little benefit from hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and Orencia, a non-TNFi biologic therapy, before finding some relief in another, Actemra. But she was taken off that drug when her white blood cells plunged, and the next three drugs she tried — all TNFis — caused allergic reactions, culminating with an outbreak of pus-filled sores. Another drug, Otezla, eventually seemed to help heal the sores, and she’s been stable on it since in combination with methotrexate, Ms. Weaver said.

“What is needed is to substantially shorten this trial-and-error period for patients,” said Shilpa Venkatachalam, PhD, herself a patient and the director of research operations at the Global Healthy Living Foundation. “There’s a lot of anxiety and frustration, weeks in pain wondering whether a drug is going to work for you and what to do if it doesn’t.” A survey by her group found that 91% of patients worried their medications would stop working. And there is evidence that the longer it takes to resolve arthritis symptoms, the less chance they will ever stop.

How insurers will respond to the availability of tests isn’t clear, partly because the arrival of new biosimilar drugs — essentially generic versions — is making TNFis cheaper for insurance plans. While Humira still dominates, AbbVie has increased rebates to insurers, in effect lowering its cost. Lower prices make the PrismRA test less appealing to insurers because widespread use of the test could cut TNFi prescriptions by up to a third.

However, rheumatologist John B. Boone, MD, in Louisville, Kentucky, found to his surprise that insurers mostly accepted alternative prescriptions for 41 patients whom the test showed unlikely to respond to TNFis as part of a clinical trial. Dr. Boone receives consulting fees from Scipher.

Although the test didn’t guarantee good outcomes, he said, the few patients given TNFis despite the test results almost all did poorly on that regimen.

Scientists from AbbVie, which makes several rheumatology drugs in addition to Humira, presented a study at the San Diego conference examining biomarkers that might show which patients would respond to Rinvoq, a new immune-suppressing drug in a class known as the JAK inhibitors. When asked about its use of precision medicine, AbbVie declined to comment.

Over two decades, Humira has been a blockbuster drug for AbbVie. The company sold more than $3.5 billion worth of Humira in the third quarter of 2023, 36% less than a year ago. Sales of Rinvoq, which AbbVie is marketing as a treatment for patients failed by Humira and its class, jumped 60% to $1.1 billion.

What Patients Want

Shannan O’Hara-Levi, a 38-year-old in Monroe, New York, has been on scores of drugs and supplements since being diagnosed with juvenile arthritis at age 3. She’s been nauseated, fatigued, and short of breath and has suffered allergic reactions, but she says the worst part of it was finding a drug that worked and then losing access because of insurance. This happened shortly after she gave birth to a daughter in 2022 and then endured intense joint pain.

“If I could take a blood test that tells me not to waste months or years of my life — absolutely,” she said. “If I could have started my current drug last fall and saved many months of not being able to engage with my baby on the floor — absolutely.”
 

This article originally appeared on KFFHealthNews.org. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

SAN DIEGO — Two proposed new multiple myeloma staging systems offer similar prognostic accuracy compared with the standard staging system, but the new systems provide more refined risk classifications across different disease stages. 

The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.

To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.

The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients. 

Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting. 

Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.

Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.

The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.

When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.

With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.

In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin. 

Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year. 

Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively). 

Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7). 

Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.

MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.

Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said. 

Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”

Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two proposed new multiple myeloma staging systems offer similar prognostic accuracy compared with the standard staging system, but the new systems provide more refined risk classifications across different disease stages. 

The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.

To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.

The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients. 

Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting. 

Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.

Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.

The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.

When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.

With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.

In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin. 

Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year. 

Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively). 

Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7). 

Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.

MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.

Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said. 

Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”

Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two proposed new multiple myeloma staging systems offer similar prognostic accuracy compared with the standard staging system, but the new systems provide more refined risk classifications across different disease stages. 

The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.

To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.

The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients. 

Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting. 

Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.

Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.

The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.

When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.

With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.

In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin. 

Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year. 

Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively). 

Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7). 

Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.

MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.

Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said. 

Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”

Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Low-dose tamoxifen, sometimes called “baby TAM,” is gaining traction as an alternative to full-dose tamoxifen for use in breast cancer prevention. The drug can reduce incidence of breast cancer in high-risk individuals, but side effects that mimic menopause have led to low rates of uptake. Lower-dose tamoxifen aims to reduce those side effects, but there remains some uncertainty about the minimum dose required to maintain efficacy.

The TAM-01 study, first published in 2019, demonstrated that a 5-mg dose of tamoxifen led to a reduction in recurrence of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). At the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, two studies were presented that provided insight into dose efficacy and likelihood of medication adherence in women taking baby TAM.

“We all know that women who are at increased risk for breast cancer may benefit from the use of tamoxifen to help lower their risk, although historical uptake to tamoxifen in the prevention setting has been quite low,” said Lauren Cornell, MD, during a presentation. Her team investigated the impact of patient counseling on how well they understood their risk, as well as their likelihood of adherence to the medication.

The study included 41 women, and 31 completed follow-up at 1 year. “We saw that 90% of our patients reported good or complete understanding of their breast cancer risk after the consultation, emphasizing the benefit of that consult, and 73% reported that the availability of baby tamoxifen helped in their decision to consider a preventative medication,” said Dr. Cornell during her presentation. After 1 year of follow-up, 74% said that they had initiated baby tamoxifen, and 78% of those who started taking the drug were still taking it at 1 year.

Participants who continued to take baby TAM at 1 year had a higher estimated breast cancer risk (IBIS 10-year risk, 12.7% vs 7.6%; P = .027) than those who discontinued. “We saw that uptake to baby TAM after informed discussion in patients who qualify is high, especially in those patients with high risk and intraepithelial lesions or DCIS, and adherence and tolerability at 1 year follow up is improved, compared to what we would expect with traditional dosing of tamoxifen. It’s important to note that the NCCN guidelines and the ASCO clinical practice update now include low-dose tamoxifen as an option for select women, and future randomized control trials on de-escalation of tamoxifen and high-risk patients based on their risk model assessment still need to be done. Future study should also focus on markers to identify candidates best suited for low versus standard dose of tamoxifen,” said Dr. Cornell, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic Florida in Jacksonville.

At another SABCS session, Per Hall, MD, PhD, discussed findings from the previously published KARISMA-2 study, which examined efficacy of various doses of tamoxifen. A total of 1440 participants, 240 in each arm, received tamoxifen doses of 20 mg, 10 mg, 5 mg, 2.5 mg, 1 mg, or placebo. During his talk, Dr. Hall pointed out that measuring outcomes would take a very large number of participants to identify small differences in breast cancer rates. Therefore, the researchers examined breast density changes as a proxy. As a noninferiority outcome, the researchers used the proportion of women in each arm who achieved the median decrease in breast density seen at 20 mg of tamoxifen, which is 10.1%.

The women underwent mammograms at baseline and again at 6 months to determine change in breast density. Among all women in the study, the proportion of patients who had a similar breast density reduction as the 20-mg dose were very similar in the 10 mg (50.0%; P = .002), 5 mg (49.3%; P < .001), and 2.5 mg (52.5%; P < .001) groups. The 1 mg group had a proportion of 39.5% (P = .138), while the placebo group had 38.9% (P = .161). However, the results were driven by premenopausal women, where the values were 63.3%, 70.7%, 74.4%, and 69.7% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, respectively, and 32.9% at 1 mg and 29.7% on placebo. In postmenopausal women, the values were 41.9%, 36.7%, 33.3%, and 41.9% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, with values of 44.2% in the 1-mg group and 43.8% in the placebo group.

The median density change was 18.5% in premenopausal women and 4.0% in postmenopausal women.

“We didn’t see anything in the postmenopausal women. The decrease for those on 20 milligrams and those on placebo were exactly the same. Why this is, we still don’t know because we do know that tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting could be used for postmenopausal women. It could be that 6 months is too short of a time [to see a benefit]. We don’t know,” said Dr. Hall, who is a medical epidemiologist and biostatistician at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Severe vasomotor side effects like hot flashes, cold flashes, and night sweats were reduced by about 50% in the lower tamoxifen doses, compared with 20 mg.

Dr. Hall also pointed out that tamoxifen is a prodrug. The CYP2D6 enzyme produces a range of metabolites, with endoxifen having the strongest affinity to the estrogen receptor and being present at the highest plasma concentration. He showed a table of endoxifen plasma levels at various tamoxifen doses in women of various metabolizer status, ranging from poor to ultrafast. Among intermediate, normal, and ultrarapid metabolizers, 5- and 10-mg doses produced plasma endoxifen levels ranging from 2.4 to 6.2 ng/mL, which represents a good therapeutic window. “For intermediate and normal metabolizers, it could be that 5 mg [of tamoxifen] is enough, but I want to underline that we didn’t use breast cancer incidence or recurrence in this study, we used density change, so we should be careful when we use these results,” said Dr. Hall. His group is now conducting the KARISMA Endoxifen trial, which will test endoxifen directly at doses of 1 and 2 mg.

Dr. Cornell has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hall is a member of the scientific advisory board for Atossa Therapeutics.

SAN ANTONIO — Low-dose tamoxifen, sometimes called “baby TAM,” is gaining traction as an alternative to full-dose tamoxifen for use in breast cancer prevention. The drug can reduce incidence of breast cancer in high-risk individuals, but side effects that mimic menopause have led to low rates of uptake. Lower-dose tamoxifen aims to reduce those side effects, but there remains some uncertainty about the minimum dose required to maintain efficacy.

The TAM-01 study, first published in 2019, demonstrated that a 5-mg dose of tamoxifen led to a reduction in recurrence of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). At the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, two studies were presented that provided insight into dose efficacy and likelihood of medication adherence in women taking baby TAM.

“We all know that women who are at increased risk for breast cancer may benefit from the use of tamoxifen to help lower their risk, although historical uptake to tamoxifen in the prevention setting has been quite low,” said Lauren Cornell, MD, during a presentation. Her team investigated the impact of patient counseling on how well they understood their risk, as well as their likelihood of adherence to the medication.

The study included 41 women, and 31 completed follow-up at 1 year. “We saw that 90% of our patients reported good or complete understanding of their breast cancer risk after the consultation, emphasizing the benefit of that consult, and 73% reported that the availability of baby tamoxifen helped in their decision to consider a preventative medication,” said Dr. Cornell during her presentation. After 1 year of follow-up, 74% said that they had initiated baby tamoxifen, and 78% of those who started taking the drug were still taking it at 1 year.

Participants who continued to take baby TAM at 1 year had a higher estimated breast cancer risk (IBIS 10-year risk, 12.7% vs 7.6%; P = .027) than those who discontinued. “We saw that uptake to baby TAM after informed discussion in patients who qualify is high, especially in those patients with high risk and intraepithelial lesions or DCIS, and adherence and tolerability at 1 year follow up is improved, compared to what we would expect with traditional dosing of tamoxifen. It’s important to note that the NCCN guidelines and the ASCO clinical practice update now include low-dose tamoxifen as an option for select women, and future randomized control trials on de-escalation of tamoxifen and high-risk patients based on their risk model assessment still need to be done. Future study should also focus on markers to identify candidates best suited for low versus standard dose of tamoxifen,” said Dr. Cornell, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic Florida in Jacksonville.

At another SABCS session, Per Hall, MD, PhD, discussed findings from the previously published KARISMA-2 study, which examined efficacy of various doses of tamoxifen. A total of 1440 participants, 240 in each arm, received tamoxifen doses of 20 mg, 10 mg, 5 mg, 2.5 mg, 1 mg, or placebo. During his talk, Dr. Hall pointed out that measuring outcomes would take a very large number of participants to identify small differences in breast cancer rates. Therefore, the researchers examined breast density changes as a proxy. As a noninferiority outcome, the researchers used the proportion of women in each arm who achieved the median decrease in breast density seen at 20 mg of tamoxifen, which is 10.1%.

The women underwent mammograms at baseline and again at 6 months to determine change in breast density. Among all women in the study, the proportion of patients who had a similar breast density reduction as the 20-mg dose were very similar in the 10 mg (50.0%; P = .002), 5 mg (49.3%; P < .001), and 2.5 mg (52.5%; P < .001) groups. The 1 mg group had a proportion of 39.5% (P = .138), while the placebo group had 38.9% (P = .161). However, the results were driven by premenopausal women, where the values were 63.3%, 70.7%, 74.4%, and 69.7% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, respectively, and 32.9% at 1 mg and 29.7% on placebo. In postmenopausal women, the values were 41.9%, 36.7%, 33.3%, and 41.9% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, with values of 44.2% in the 1-mg group and 43.8% in the placebo group.

The median density change was 18.5% in premenopausal women and 4.0% in postmenopausal women.

“We didn’t see anything in the postmenopausal women. The decrease for those on 20 milligrams and those on placebo were exactly the same. Why this is, we still don’t know because we do know that tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting could be used for postmenopausal women. It could be that 6 months is too short of a time [to see a benefit]. We don’t know,” said Dr. Hall, who is a medical epidemiologist and biostatistician at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Severe vasomotor side effects like hot flashes, cold flashes, and night sweats were reduced by about 50% in the lower tamoxifen doses, compared with 20 mg.

Dr. Hall also pointed out that tamoxifen is a prodrug. The CYP2D6 enzyme produces a range of metabolites, with endoxifen having the strongest affinity to the estrogen receptor and being present at the highest plasma concentration. He showed a table of endoxifen plasma levels at various tamoxifen doses in women of various metabolizer status, ranging from poor to ultrafast. Among intermediate, normal, and ultrarapid metabolizers, 5- and 10-mg doses produced plasma endoxifen levels ranging from 2.4 to 6.2 ng/mL, which represents a good therapeutic window. “For intermediate and normal metabolizers, it could be that 5 mg [of tamoxifen] is enough, but I want to underline that we didn’t use breast cancer incidence or recurrence in this study, we used density change, so we should be careful when we use these results,” said Dr. Hall. His group is now conducting the KARISMA Endoxifen trial, which will test endoxifen directly at doses of 1 and 2 mg.

Dr. Cornell has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hall is a member of the scientific advisory board for Atossa Therapeutics.

SAN ANTONIO — Low-dose tamoxifen, sometimes called “baby TAM,” is gaining traction as an alternative to full-dose tamoxifen for use in breast cancer prevention. The drug can reduce incidence of breast cancer in high-risk individuals, but side effects that mimic menopause have led to low rates of uptake. Lower-dose tamoxifen aims to reduce those side effects, but there remains some uncertainty about the minimum dose required to maintain efficacy.

The TAM-01 study, first published in 2019, demonstrated that a 5-mg dose of tamoxifen led to a reduction in recurrence of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). At the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, two studies were presented that provided insight into dose efficacy and likelihood of medication adherence in women taking baby TAM.

“We all know that women who are at increased risk for breast cancer may benefit from the use of tamoxifen to help lower their risk, although historical uptake to tamoxifen in the prevention setting has been quite low,” said Lauren Cornell, MD, during a presentation. Her team investigated the impact of patient counseling on how well they understood their risk, as well as their likelihood of adherence to the medication.

The study included 41 women, and 31 completed follow-up at 1 year. “We saw that 90% of our patients reported good or complete understanding of their breast cancer risk after the consultation, emphasizing the benefit of that consult, and 73% reported that the availability of baby tamoxifen helped in their decision to consider a preventative medication,” said Dr. Cornell during her presentation. After 1 year of follow-up, 74% said that they had initiated baby tamoxifen, and 78% of those who started taking the drug were still taking it at 1 year.

Participants who continued to take baby TAM at 1 year had a higher estimated breast cancer risk (IBIS 10-year risk, 12.7% vs 7.6%; P = .027) than those who discontinued. “We saw that uptake to baby TAM after informed discussion in patients who qualify is high, especially in those patients with high risk and intraepithelial lesions or DCIS, and adherence and tolerability at 1 year follow up is improved, compared to what we would expect with traditional dosing of tamoxifen. It’s important to note that the NCCN guidelines and the ASCO clinical practice update now include low-dose tamoxifen as an option for select women, and future randomized control trials on de-escalation of tamoxifen and high-risk patients based on their risk model assessment still need to be done. Future study should also focus on markers to identify candidates best suited for low versus standard dose of tamoxifen,” said Dr. Cornell, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic Florida in Jacksonville.

At another SABCS session, Per Hall, MD, PhD, discussed findings from the previously published KARISMA-2 study, which examined efficacy of various doses of tamoxifen. A total of 1440 participants, 240 in each arm, received tamoxifen doses of 20 mg, 10 mg, 5 mg, 2.5 mg, 1 mg, or placebo. During his talk, Dr. Hall pointed out that measuring outcomes would take a very large number of participants to identify small differences in breast cancer rates. Therefore, the researchers examined breast density changes as a proxy. As a noninferiority outcome, the researchers used the proportion of women in each arm who achieved the median decrease in breast density seen at 20 mg of tamoxifen, which is 10.1%.

The women underwent mammograms at baseline and again at 6 months to determine change in breast density. Among all women in the study, the proportion of patients who had a similar breast density reduction as the 20-mg dose were very similar in the 10 mg (50.0%; P = .002), 5 mg (49.3%; P < .001), and 2.5 mg (52.5%; P < .001) groups. The 1 mg group had a proportion of 39.5% (P = .138), while the placebo group had 38.9% (P = .161). However, the results were driven by premenopausal women, where the values were 63.3%, 70.7%, 74.4%, and 69.7% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, respectively, and 32.9% at 1 mg and 29.7% on placebo. In postmenopausal women, the values were 41.9%, 36.7%, 33.3%, and 41.9% in the 20-mg, 10-mg, 5-mg, and 2.5-mg groups, with values of 44.2% in the 1-mg group and 43.8% in the placebo group.

The median density change was 18.5% in premenopausal women and 4.0% in postmenopausal women.

“We didn’t see anything in the postmenopausal women. The decrease for those on 20 milligrams and those on placebo were exactly the same. Why this is, we still don’t know because we do know that tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting could be used for postmenopausal women. It could be that 6 months is too short of a time [to see a benefit]. We don’t know,” said Dr. Hall, who is a medical epidemiologist and biostatistician at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Severe vasomotor side effects like hot flashes, cold flashes, and night sweats were reduced by about 50% in the lower tamoxifen doses, compared with 20 mg.

Dr. Hall also pointed out that tamoxifen is a prodrug. The CYP2D6 enzyme produces a range of metabolites, with endoxifen having the strongest affinity to the estrogen receptor and being present at the highest plasma concentration. He showed a table of endoxifen plasma levels at various tamoxifen doses in women of various metabolizer status, ranging from poor to ultrafast. Among intermediate, normal, and ultrarapid metabolizers, 5- and 10-mg doses produced plasma endoxifen levels ranging from 2.4 to 6.2 ng/mL, which represents a good therapeutic window. “For intermediate and normal metabolizers, it could be that 5 mg [of tamoxifen] is enough, but I want to underline that we didn’t use breast cancer incidence or recurrence in this study, we used density change, so we should be careful when we use these results,” said Dr. Hall. His group is now conducting the KARISMA Endoxifen trial, which will test endoxifen directly at doses of 1 and 2 mg.

Dr. Cornell has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hall is a member of the scientific advisory board for Atossa Therapeutics.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In 1986, in Britain, cattle started dying.

The condition, quickly nicknamed “mad cow disease,” was clearly infectious, but the particular pathogen was difficult to identify. By 1993, 120,000 cattle in Britain were identified as being infected. As yet, no human cases had occurred and the UK government insisted that cattle were a dead-end host for the pathogen. By the mid-1990s, however, multiple human cases, attributable to ingestion of meat and organs from infected cattle, were discovered. In humans, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) was a media sensation — a nearly uniformly fatal, untreatable condition with a rapid onset of dementia, mobility issues characterized by jerky movements, and autopsy reports finding that the brain itself had turned into a spongy mess.

The United States banned UK beef imports in 1996 and only lifted the ban in 2020.

The disease was made all the more mysterious because the pathogen involved was not a bacterium, parasite, or virus, but a protein — or a proteinaceous infectious particle, shortened to “prion.”

Prions are misfolded proteins that aggregate in cells — in this case, in nerve cells. But what makes prions different from other misfolded proteins is that the misfolded protein catalyzes the conversion of its non-misfolded counterpart into the misfolded configuration. It creates a chain reaction, leading to rapid accumulation of misfolded proteins and cell death.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In 1986, in Britain, cattle started dying.

The condition, quickly nicknamed “mad cow disease,” was clearly infectious, but the particular pathogen was difficult to identify. By 1993, 120,000 cattle in Britain were identified as being infected. As yet, no human cases had occurred and the UK government insisted that cattle were a dead-end host for the pathogen. By the mid-1990s, however, multiple human cases, attributable to ingestion of meat and organs from infected cattle, were discovered. In humans, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) was a media sensation — a nearly uniformly fatal, untreatable condition with a rapid onset of dementia, mobility issues characterized by jerky movements, and autopsy reports finding that the brain itself had turned into a spongy mess.

The United States banned UK beef imports in 1996 and only lifted the ban in 2020.

The disease was made all the more mysterious because the pathogen involved was not a bacterium, parasite, or virus, but a protein — or a proteinaceous infectious particle, shortened to “prion.”

Prions are misfolded proteins that aggregate in cells — in this case, in nerve cells. But what makes prions different from other misfolded proteins is that the misfolded protein catalyzes the conversion of its non-misfolded counterpart into the misfolded configuration. It creates a chain reaction, leading to rapid accumulation of misfolded proteins and cell death.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In 1986, in Britain, cattle started dying.

The condition, quickly nicknamed “mad cow disease,” was clearly infectious, but the particular pathogen was difficult to identify. By 1993, 120,000 cattle in Britain were identified as being infected. As yet, no human cases had occurred and the UK government insisted that cattle were a dead-end host for the pathogen. By the mid-1990s, however, multiple human cases, attributable to ingestion of meat and organs from infected cattle, were discovered. In humans, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) was a media sensation — a nearly uniformly fatal, untreatable condition with a rapid onset of dementia, mobility issues characterized by jerky movements, and autopsy reports finding that the brain itself had turned into a spongy mess.

The United States banned UK beef imports in 1996 and only lifted the ban in 2020.

The disease was made all the more mysterious because the pathogen involved was not a bacterium, parasite, or virus, but a protein — or a proteinaceous infectious particle, shortened to “prion.”

Prions are misfolded proteins that aggregate in cells — in this case, in nerve cells. But what makes prions different from other misfolded proteins is that the misfolded protein catalyzes the conversion of its non-misfolded counterpart into the misfolded configuration. It creates a chain reaction, leading to rapid accumulation of misfolded proteins and cell death.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

TOPLINE:

People who are extroverted and conscientious and have a positive outlook may be at lower dementia risk, whereas those who score highly for neuroticism and have a negative outlook may be at increased risk, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers examined the link between the “big five” personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and subjective well-being (positive and negative affect and life satisfaction) and clinical symptoms of dementia (cognitive test performance) and neuropathology at autopsy. 
• Data for the meta-analysis came from eight longitudinal studies with 44,531 adults (aged 49-81 years at baseline; 26%-61% women) followed for up to 21 years, during which 1703 incident cases of dementia occurred. 
• Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and subjective well-being differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathologic characteristics of dementia. 

TAKEAWAY:

• High neuroticism, negative affect, and low conscientiousness were risk factors for dementia, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were protective.
• Across all analyses, there was directional consistency in estimates across samples, which is noteworthy given between-study differences in sociodemographic and design characteristics. 
• No consistent associations were found between psychological factors and neuropathology. 
• However, individuals higher in conscientiousness who did not receive a clinical diagnosis tended to have a lower Braak stage at autopsy, suggesting the possibility that conscientiousness is related to cognitive resilience. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results replicate and extend evidence that personality traits may assist in early identification and dementia-care planning strategies, as well as risk stratification for dementia diagnosis. Moreover, our findings provide further support for recommendations to incorporate psychological trait measures into clinical screening or diagnosis criteria,” the authors write. SOURCE:

The study, with first author Emorie Beck, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, was published online on November 29, 2023, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 LIMITATIONS:

Access to autopsy data was limited. The findings may not generalize across racial groups. The analysis did not examine dynamic associations between changing personality and cognition and neuropathology over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People who are extroverted and conscientious and have a positive outlook may be at lower dementia risk, whereas those who score highly for neuroticism and have a negative outlook may be at increased risk, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers examined the link between the “big five” personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and subjective well-being (positive and negative affect and life satisfaction) and clinical symptoms of dementia (cognitive test performance) and neuropathology at autopsy. 
• Data for the meta-analysis came from eight longitudinal studies with 44,531 adults (aged 49-81 years at baseline; 26%-61% women) followed for up to 21 years, during which 1703 incident cases of dementia occurred. 
• Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and subjective well-being differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathologic characteristics of dementia. 

TAKEAWAY:

• High neuroticism, negative affect, and low conscientiousness were risk factors for dementia, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were protective.
• Across all analyses, there was directional consistency in estimates across samples, which is noteworthy given between-study differences in sociodemographic and design characteristics. 
• No consistent associations were found between psychological factors and neuropathology. 
• However, individuals higher in conscientiousness who did not receive a clinical diagnosis tended to have a lower Braak stage at autopsy, suggesting the possibility that conscientiousness is related to cognitive resilience. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results replicate and extend evidence that personality traits may assist in early identification and dementia-care planning strategies, as well as risk stratification for dementia diagnosis. Moreover, our findings provide further support for recommendations to incorporate psychological trait measures into clinical screening or diagnosis criteria,” the authors write. SOURCE:

The study, with first author Emorie Beck, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, was published online on November 29, 2023, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 LIMITATIONS:

Access to autopsy data was limited. The findings may not generalize across racial groups. The analysis did not examine dynamic associations between changing personality and cognition and neuropathology over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People who are extroverted and conscientious and have a positive outlook may be at lower dementia risk, whereas those who score highly for neuroticism and have a negative outlook may be at increased risk, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers examined the link between the “big five” personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and subjective well-being (positive and negative affect and life satisfaction) and clinical symptoms of dementia (cognitive test performance) and neuropathology at autopsy. 
• Data for the meta-analysis came from eight longitudinal studies with 44,531 adults (aged 49-81 years at baseline; 26%-61% women) followed for up to 21 years, during which 1703 incident cases of dementia occurred. 
• Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and subjective well-being differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathologic characteristics of dementia. 

TAKEAWAY:

• High neuroticism, negative affect, and low conscientiousness were risk factors for dementia, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were protective.
• Across all analyses, there was directional consistency in estimates across samples, which is noteworthy given between-study differences in sociodemographic and design characteristics. 
• No consistent associations were found between psychological factors and neuropathology. 
• However, individuals higher in conscientiousness who did not receive a clinical diagnosis tended to have a lower Braak stage at autopsy, suggesting the possibility that conscientiousness is related to cognitive resilience. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results replicate and extend evidence that personality traits may assist in early identification and dementia-care planning strategies, as well as risk stratification for dementia diagnosis. Moreover, our findings provide further support for recommendations to incorporate psychological trait measures into clinical screening or diagnosis criteria,” the authors write. SOURCE:

The study, with first author Emorie Beck, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, was published online on November 29, 2023, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 LIMITATIONS:

Access to autopsy data was limited. The findings may not generalize across racial groups. The analysis did not examine dynamic associations between changing personality and cognition and neuropathology over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

SAN ANTONIO – Women aged 50 and over who have undergone curative treatment for breast cancer and remain cancer free after 3 years may safely de-escalate mammogram surveillance from the recommended annual schedule, according to results from a new randomized trial.

In the UK study, researchers found similar recurrence rates and overall survival between patients who continued to undergo annual screening versus women who underwent screening every 2 years after breast-conserving surgery or every 3 years after a mastectomy.

Current US guidelines recommend annual screening with no stopping point, while UK guidelines recommend annual screening for 5 years, followed by every 3 years after that.

The study was commissioned by the UK government after a previously commissioned systematic review showed lack of evidence for the existing frequency and duration of mammograms in this patient population, and a survey showed wide-ranging clinical practices. In response, the UK government funded the new study to evaluate whether it would be safe to reduce screening, according to Janet Dunn, PhD, who presented the study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Ladies are going back for years and years and years [for mammograms], and it’s inappropriate, it’s not necessary,” Dr. Dunn, professor of clinical trials and head of cancer trials at University of Warwick in the UK, said in an interview.

The lower frequency schedule requires that the patient be cancer free at 3 years following curative treatment. “We know for anybody going through breast cancer there are a couple of peaks of recurrence. One peak is 2 to 3 years [after curative treatment] for high-risk patients. The other peak is when they start hormone therapy, so at 5 to 6 years you get the peak. But this particular set of patients are at low to moderate risk, so they’re not the high-risk patients going into treatment trials,” said Dr. Dunn.

When asked if the findings should change practice, Dr. Dunn suggested that they could. “We would say that this is providing clinical evidence and probably changing guidance for the management of these patients: Instead of giving annual mammograms for years and years and years, after three years post curative surgery, and having gone through treatment with a baseline mammogram that’s clear, in the UK we can manage these patients back within the screening program, certainly for the mastectomy patients,” said Dr. Dunn.

She emphasized the potential mental health impact. “Women who are going through mammograms waiting for the results are much more anxious if they’ve had breast cancer before than those who were who were just going through normal screening. So [deescalation] is reducing anxiety. It’s also reducing the cost. It’s just reducing the burden on the whole health care system,” said Dr. Dunn.

During the Q&A session after the talk, Bruce Mann, MBBS, PhD, asked if there were differences in the pathology of the cancers that occurred in the less frequent group than those that arose in the annual group. If more frequent screening leads to earlier diagnosis of a tumor, “you would expect that those who have less [frequent screening] may be diagnosed with more advanced recurrences or new cancers, and that would eventually lead to a difference in outcome,” Dr. Mann said in an interview. He is director of breast cancer services at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia.

He acknowledged the need to reconsider screening frequency, and complimented the researchers. “This is a nice pragmatic study. It’s interesting. It’s provocative. I think it’s a bit too early [to change practice]. I think we do need to see more information,” he said.

The researchers randomized 5235 women aged 50 and older to annual or less frequent mammography. The disease type was invasive in 87% of women, while 13% had ductal carcinoma in situ.

Over a median follow-up of 8.7 years, 7% experienced a recurrence. At 5 years, breast cancer–specific survival was 98.1% and 98.3% in the annual and less frequent groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64-1.32). There was also no difference in recurrence-free survival or overall survival.

Analyses showed noninferiority of less frequent mammograms at a 3% margin (P < .0001) and a 1% margin (P = .003).

The researchers found that 83% of women were compliant with the mammogram schedule in the annual group, versus 69% in the less frequent arm. The COVID-19 pandemic was responsible for 35% of missed mammograms overall.

Quality of life measures showed that levels of distress over mammograms was similar across time and between the two groups, with 24% of women reporting medium or high levels of distress.

Dr. Dunn and Dr. Mann have no relevant financial disclosures.