Federal Practitioner

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been spending time recently reflecting on the biggest developments from last year. I have to say that the breakthrough of the year, based on the amount of data presented and the importance of the data, is chemotherapy. I never thought I would say that. Many folks have tried to relegate chemotherapy to the museum, but last year it came to the forefront.

Let’s start with neoadjuvant therapy. We now have multiple drug approvals for giving a checkpoint inhibitor and neoadjuvant therapy in what I would say is a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced lung cancers who are candidates for surgery. In all those trials, there was a clear improvement in progression-free survival by adding a checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy. The cornerstone of this regimen is chemotherapy.

What about adjuvant therapy? I think one of the most astounding pieces of data last year was in the adjuvant realm. In the trial comparing adjuvant osimertinib with placebo in patients with EGFR-mutant disease, patients who received chemotherapy in addition to osimertinib had a 7% improvement in 5-year survival. Patients who had placebo, who got chemotherapy vs didn’t, had a 9% improvement in 5-year survival. Those are huge numbers for that kind of metric, and it happened with chemotherapy.

What about targeted therapies? Again, I think people were astounded that, by adding chemotherapy to osimertinib compared with osimertinib alone, there was a 9-month improvement overall in progression-free survival. I think in the presentation of the data that has been made, the most remarkable piece of data is that, in patients with brain metastases, chemotherapy on top of osimertinib improved progression-free survival. Not only did it improve progression-free survival, but it did it with brain metastases, where people think it just doesn’t help at all.

What about other, newer agents with chemotherapy? Amivantamab, I would say, has hitched itself to chemotherapy. A trial in EGFR exon 20 compared chemo to amivantamab plus chemotherapy. There again, chemo is the common denominator. Amivantamab added approximately 5 months of improved progression-free survival. Again, chemo was used. In adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and targeted therapies, chemotherapy adds.

What about the second line? I think everybody was very disappointed when second-line sotorasib gave a very tiny amount of progression-free survival improvement over docetaxel. I think we all want more for our patients than we can deliver with docetaxel. The roughly 5-week improvement seen with sotorasib was one that raised a question about the place of sotorasib in this setting.

Clearly, we’ve all seen patients have an excellent result with sotorasib as an additional option for treating patients with long progression-free survival, high rates of response, and good tolerability even at the 960 mg dose. But in the randomized trial, it wasn’t better than docetaxel. Again, I think we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine in that it could not beat docetaxel either. I think the idea here is that chemo still has a huge place and still remains the treatment that we have to beat.

We’re all very excited about the antibody-drug conjugates and I think everybody sees them as another advance. Many folks have said that they are just a more precise way of delivering chemotherapy, and when you look at the side effects, it supports that — they’re largely side effects of chemotherapy with these drugs across the board. Also, when you look at the patterns of resistance, the resistance really isn’t a resistance to the targeted therapy; it’s a resistance to chemotherapy more than anything else.

So we’re happy that the antibody-drug conjugates are available and we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine because we thought that it could beat docetaxel. But in truth, it didn’t, and unfortunately, that pivotal trial led to the end of the entire development program for that agent, as stated in a press release.

The molecule or treatment of the year is chemotherapy — added to targeted therapies, used with immunotherapy, and now attached to antibodies as part of antibody-drug conjugates. I think it remains, more than any one treatment, a very effective treatment for patients and deserves to be used.

There are a lot of choices here. I think you have to be very careful to choose wisely, and you also have to be careful because chemotherapy has side effects. The nice thing is that many of those side effects can be ameliorated. We have to make sure that we use all the supportive medications we can.

Who would have thought that chemotherapy would be the treatment of the year in 2023 for lung cancers?
 

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been spending time recently reflecting on the biggest developments from last year. I have to say that the breakthrough of the year, based on the amount of data presented and the importance of the data, is chemotherapy. I never thought I would say that. Many folks have tried to relegate chemotherapy to the museum, but last year it came to the forefront.

Let’s start with neoadjuvant therapy. We now have multiple drug approvals for giving a checkpoint inhibitor and neoadjuvant therapy in what I would say is a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced lung cancers who are candidates for surgery. In all those trials, there was a clear improvement in progression-free survival by adding a checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy. The cornerstone of this regimen is chemotherapy.

What about adjuvant therapy? I think one of the most astounding pieces of data last year was in the adjuvant realm. In the trial comparing adjuvant osimertinib with placebo in patients with EGFR-mutant disease, patients who received chemotherapy in addition to osimertinib had a 7% improvement in 5-year survival. Patients who had placebo, who got chemotherapy vs didn’t, had a 9% improvement in 5-year survival. Those are huge numbers for that kind of metric, and it happened with chemotherapy.

What about targeted therapies? Again, I think people were astounded that, by adding chemotherapy to osimertinib compared with osimertinib alone, there was a 9-month improvement overall in progression-free survival. I think in the presentation of the data that has been made, the most remarkable piece of data is that, in patients with brain metastases, chemotherapy on top of osimertinib improved progression-free survival. Not only did it improve progression-free survival, but it did it with brain metastases, where people think it just doesn’t help at all.

What about other, newer agents with chemotherapy? Amivantamab, I would say, has hitched itself to chemotherapy. A trial in EGFR exon 20 compared chemo to amivantamab plus chemotherapy. There again, chemo is the common denominator. Amivantamab added approximately 5 months of improved progression-free survival. Again, chemo was used. In adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and targeted therapies, chemotherapy adds.

What about the second line? I think everybody was very disappointed when second-line sotorasib gave a very tiny amount of progression-free survival improvement over docetaxel. I think we all want more for our patients than we can deliver with docetaxel. The roughly 5-week improvement seen with sotorasib was one that raised a question about the place of sotorasib in this setting.

Clearly, we’ve all seen patients have an excellent result with sotorasib as an additional option for treating patients with long progression-free survival, high rates of response, and good tolerability even at the 960 mg dose. But in the randomized trial, it wasn’t better than docetaxel. Again, I think we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine in that it could not beat docetaxel either. I think the idea here is that chemo still has a huge place and still remains the treatment that we have to beat.

We’re all very excited about the antibody-drug conjugates and I think everybody sees them as another advance. Many folks have said that they are just a more precise way of delivering chemotherapy, and when you look at the side effects, it supports that — they’re largely side effects of chemotherapy with these drugs across the board. Also, when you look at the patterns of resistance, the resistance really isn’t a resistance to the targeted therapy; it’s a resistance to chemotherapy more than anything else.

So we’re happy that the antibody-drug conjugates are available and we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine because we thought that it could beat docetaxel. But in truth, it didn’t, and unfortunately, that pivotal trial led to the end of the entire development program for that agent, as stated in a press release.

The molecule or treatment of the year is chemotherapy — added to targeted therapies, used with immunotherapy, and now attached to antibodies as part of antibody-drug conjugates. I think it remains, more than any one treatment, a very effective treatment for patients and deserves to be used.

There are a lot of choices here. I think you have to be very careful to choose wisely, and you also have to be careful because chemotherapy has side effects. The nice thing is that many of those side effects can be ameliorated. We have to make sure that we use all the supportive medications we can.

Who would have thought that chemotherapy would be the treatment of the year in 2023 for lung cancers?
 

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been spending time recently reflecting on the biggest developments from last year. I have to say that the breakthrough of the year, based on the amount of data presented and the importance of the data, is chemotherapy. I never thought I would say that. Many folks have tried to relegate chemotherapy to the museum, but last year it came to the forefront.

Let’s start with neoadjuvant therapy. We now have multiple drug approvals for giving a checkpoint inhibitor and neoadjuvant therapy in what I would say is a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced lung cancers who are candidates for surgery. In all those trials, there was a clear improvement in progression-free survival by adding a checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy. The cornerstone of this regimen is chemotherapy.

What about adjuvant therapy? I think one of the most astounding pieces of data last year was in the adjuvant realm. In the trial comparing adjuvant osimertinib with placebo in patients with EGFR-mutant disease, patients who received chemotherapy in addition to osimertinib had a 7% improvement in 5-year survival. Patients who had placebo, who got chemotherapy vs didn’t, had a 9% improvement in 5-year survival. Those are huge numbers for that kind of metric, and it happened with chemotherapy.

What about targeted therapies? Again, I think people were astounded that, by adding chemotherapy to osimertinib compared with osimertinib alone, there was a 9-month improvement overall in progression-free survival. I think in the presentation of the data that has been made, the most remarkable piece of data is that, in patients with brain metastases, chemotherapy on top of osimertinib improved progression-free survival. Not only did it improve progression-free survival, but it did it with brain metastases, where people think it just doesn’t help at all.

What about other, newer agents with chemotherapy? Amivantamab, I would say, has hitched itself to chemotherapy. A trial in EGFR exon 20 compared chemo to amivantamab plus chemotherapy. There again, chemo is the common denominator. Amivantamab added approximately 5 months of improved progression-free survival. Again, chemo was used. In adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and targeted therapies, chemotherapy adds.

What about the second line? I think everybody was very disappointed when second-line sotorasib gave a very tiny amount of progression-free survival improvement over docetaxel. I think we all want more for our patients than we can deliver with docetaxel. The roughly 5-week improvement seen with sotorasib was one that raised a question about the place of sotorasib in this setting.

Clearly, we’ve all seen patients have an excellent result with sotorasib as an additional option for treating patients with long progression-free survival, high rates of response, and good tolerability even at the 960 mg dose. But in the randomized trial, it wasn’t better than docetaxel. Again, I think we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine in that it could not beat docetaxel either. I think the idea here is that chemo still has a huge place and still remains the treatment that we have to beat.

We’re all very excited about the antibody-drug conjugates and I think everybody sees them as another advance. Many folks have said that they are just a more precise way of delivering chemotherapy, and when you look at the side effects, it supports that — they’re largely side effects of chemotherapy with these drugs across the board. Also, when you look at the patterns of resistance, the resistance really isn’t a resistance to the targeted therapy; it’s a resistance to chemotherapy more than anything else.

So we’re happy that the antibody-drug conjugates are available and we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine because we thought that it could beat docetaxel. But in truth, it didn’t, and unfortunately, that pivotal trial led to the end of the entire development program for that agent, as stated in a press release.

The molecule or treatment of the year is chemotherapy — added to targeted therapies, used with immunotherapy, and now attached to antibodies as part of antibody-drug conjugates. I think it remains, more than any one treatment, a very effective treatment for patients and deserves to be used.

There are a lot of choices here. I think you have to be very careful to choose wisely, and you also have to be careful because chemotherapy has side effects. The nice thing is that many of those side effects can be ameliorated. We have to make sure that we use all the supportive medications we can.

Who would have thought that chemotherapy would be the treatment of the year in 2023 for lung cancers?
 

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has lagged in health care but has considerable potential to improve quality, safety, clinician experience, and access to care. It is being tested in areas like billing, hospital operations, and preventing adverse events (eg, sepsis mortality) with some early success. However, there are still many barriers preventing the widespread use of AI, such as data problems, mismatched rewards, and workplace obstacles. Innovative projects, partnerships, better rewards, and more investment could remove barriers. Implemented reliably and safely, AI can add to what clinicians know, help them work faster, cut costs, and, most importantly, improve patient care.¹

AI can potentially bring several clinical benefits, such as reducing the administrative strain on clinicians and granting them more time for direct patient care. It can also improve diagnostic accuracy by analyzing patient data and diagnostic images, providing differential diagnoses, and increasing access to care by providing medical information and essential online services to patients.²

High Reliability Organizations

High reliability health care organizations have considerable experience safely launching new programs. For example, the Patient Safety Adoption Framework gives practical tips for smoothly rolling out safety initiatives (Table 1). Developed with experts and diverse views, this framework has 5 key areas: leadership, culture and context, process, measurement, and person-centeredness. These address adoption problems, guide leaders step-by-step, and focus on leadership buy-in, safety culture, cooperation, and local customization. Checklists and tools make it systematic to go from ideas to action on patient safety.³

Leadership involves establishing organizational commitment behind new safety programs. This visible commitment signals importance and priorities to others. Leaders model desired behaviors and language around safety, allocate resources, remove obstacles, and keep initiatives energized over time through consistent messaging.⁴ Culture and context recognizes that safety culture differs across units and facilities. Local input tailors programs to fit and examines strengths to build on, like psychological safety. Surveys gauge the existing culture and its need for change. Process details how to plan, design, test, implement, and improve new safety practices and provides a phased roadmap from idea to results. Measurement collects data to drive improvement and show impact. Metrics track progress and allow benchmarking. Person-centeredness puts patients first in safety efforts through participation, education, and transparency.

The Veterans Health Administration piloted a comprehensive high reliability hospital (HRH) model. Over 3 years, the Veterans Health Administration focused on leadership, culture, and process improvement at a hospital. After initiating the model, the pilot hospital improved its safety culture, reported more minor safety issues, and reduced deaths and complications better than other hospitals. The high-reliability approach successfully instilled principles and improved culture and outcomes. The HRH model is set to be expanded to 18 more US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites for further evaluation across diverse settings.⁵

Trustworthy AI Framework

AI systems are growing more powerful and widespread, including in health care. Unfortunately, irresponsible AI can introduce new harm. ChatGPT and other large language models, for example, sometimes are known to provide erroneous information in a compelling way. Clinicians and patients who use such programs can act on such information, which would lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Several frameworks on ethical AI have come from governmental groups.^6-9 In 2023, the VA National AI Institute suggested a Trustworthy AI Framework based on core principles tailored for federal health care. The framework has 6 key principles: purposeful, effective and safe, secure and private, fair and equitable, transparent and explainable, and accountable and monitored (Table 2).¹⁰

First, AI must clearly help veterans while minimizing risks. To ensure purpose, the VA will assess patient and clinician needs and design AI that targets meaningful problems to avoid scope creep or feature bloat. For example, adding new features to the AI software after release can clutter and complicate the interface, making it difficult to use. Rigorous testing will confirm that AI meets intent prior to deployment. Second, AI is designed and checked for effectiveness, safety, and reliability. The VA pledges to monitor AI’s impact to ensure it performs as expected without unintended consequences. Algorithms will be stress tested across representative datasets and approval processes will screen for safety issues. Third, AI models are secured from vulnerabilities and misuse. Technical controls will prevent unauthorized access or changes to AI systems. Audits will check for appropriate internal usage per policies. Continual patches and upgrades will maintain security. Fourth, the VA manages AI for fairness, avoiding bias. They will proactively assess datasets and algorithms for potential biases based on protected attributes like race, gender, or age. Biased outputs will be addressed through techniques such as data augmentation, reweighting, and algorithm tweaks. Fifth, transparency explains AI’s role in care. Documentation will detail an AI system’s data sources, methodology, testing, limitations, and integration with clinical workflows. Clinicians and patients will receive education on interpreting AI outputs. Finally, the VA pledges to closely monitor AI systems to sustain trust. The VA will establish oversight processes to quickly identify any declines in reliability or unfair impacts on subgroups. AI models will be retrained as needed based on incoming data patterns.

Each Trustworthy AI Framework principle connects to others in existing frameworks. The purpose principle aligns with human-centric AI focused on benefits. Effectiveness and safety link to technical robustness and risk management principles. Security maps to privacy protection principles. Fairness connects to principles of avoiding bias and discrimination. Transparency corresponds with accountable and explainable AI. Monitoring and accountability tie back to governance principles. Overall, the VA framework aims to guide ethical AI based on context. It offers a model for managing risks and building trust in health care AI.

Combining VA principles with high-reliability safety principles can ensure that AI benefits veterans. The leadership and culture aspects will drive commitment to trustworthy AI practices. Leaders will communicate the importance of responsible AI through words and actions. Culture surveys can assess baseline awareness of AI ethics issues to target education. AI security and fairness will be emphasized as safety critical. The process aspect will institute policies and procedures to uphold AI principles through the project lifecycle. For example, structured testing processes will validate safety. Measurement will collect data on principles like transparency and fairness. Dashboards can track metrics like explainability and biases. A patient-centered approach will incorporate veteran perspectives on AI through participatory design and advisory councils. They can give input on AI explainability and potential biases based on their diverse backgrounds.

Conclusions

Joint principles will lead to successful AI that improves care while proactively managing risks. Involve leaders to stress the necessity of eliminating biases. Build security into the AI development process. Co-design AI transparency features with end users. Closely monitor the impact of AI across safety, fairness, and other principles. Adhering to both Trustworthy AI and high reliability organizations principles will earn veterans’ confidence. Health care organizations like the VA can integrate ethical AI safely via established frameworks. With responsible design and implementation, AI’s potential to enhance care quality, safety, and access can be realized.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Joshua Mueller, Theo Tiffney, John Zachary, and Gil Alterovitz for their excellent work creating the VA Trustworthy Principles. This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has lagged in health care but has considerable potential to improve quality, safety, clinician experience, and access to care. It is being tested in areas like billing, hospital operations, and preventing adverse events (eg, sepsis mortality) with some early success. However, there are still many barriers preventing the widespread use of AI, such as data problems, mismatched rewards, and workplace obstacles. Innovative projects, partnerships, better rewards, and more investment could remove barriers. Implemented reliably and safely, AI can add to what clinicians know, help them work faster, cut costs, and, most importantly, improve patient care.¹

AI can potentially bring several clinical benefits, such as reducing the administrative strain on clinicians and granting them more time for direct patient care. It can also improve diagnostic accuracy by analyzing patient data and diagnostic images, providing differential diagnoses, and increasing access to care by providing medical information and essential online services to patients.²

High Reliability Organizations

High reliability health care organizations have considerable experience safely launching new programs. For example, the Patient Safety Adoption Framework gives practical tips for smoothly rolling out safety initiatives (Table 1). Developed with experts and diverse views, this framework has 5 key areas: leadership, culture and context, process, measurement, and person-centeredness. These address adoption problems, guide leaders step-by-step, and focus on leadership buy-in, safety culture, cooperation, and local customization. Checklists and tools make it systematic to go from ideas to action on patient safety.³

Leadership involves establishing organizational commitment behind new safety programs. This visible commitment signals importance and priorities to others. Leaders model desired behaviors and language around safety, allocate resources, remove obstacles, and keep initiatives energized over time through consistent messaging.⁴ Culture and context recognizes that safety culture differs across units and facilities. Local input tailors programs to fit and examines strengths to build on, like psychological safety. Surveys gauge the existing culture and its need for change. Process details how to plan, design, test, implement, and improve new safety practices and provides a phased roadmap from idea to results. Measurement collects data to drive improvement and show impact. Metrics track progress and allow benchmarking. Person-centeredness puts patients first in safety efforts through participation, education, and transparency.

The Veterans Health Administration piloted a comprehensive high reliability hospital (HRH) model. Over 3 years, the Veterans Health Administration focused on leadership, culture, and process improvement at a hospital. After initiating the model, the pilot hospital improved its safety culture, reported more minor safety issues, and reduced deaths and complications better than other hospitals. The high-reliability approach successfully instilled principles and improved culture and outcomes. The HRH model is set to be expanded to 18 more US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites for further evaluation across diverse settings.⁵

Trustworthy AI Framework

AI systems are growing more powerful and widespread, including in health care. Unfortunately, irresponsible AI can introduce new harm. ChatGPT and other large language models, for example, sometimes are known to provide erroneous information in a compelling way. Clinicians and patients who use such programs can act on such information, which would lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Several frameworks on ethical AI have come from governmental groups.^6-9 In 2023, the VA National AI Institute suggested a Trustworthy AI Framework based on core principles tailored for federal health care. The framework has 6 key principles: purposeful, effective and safe, secure and private, fair and equitable, transparent and explainable, and accountable and monitored (Table 2).¹⁰

First, AI must clearly help veterans while minimizing risks. To ensure purpose, the VA will assess patient and clinician needs and design AI that targets meaningful problems to avoid scope creep or feature bloat. For example, adding new features to the AI software after release can clutter and complicate the interface, making it difficult to use. Rigorous testing will confirm that AI meets intent prior to deployment. Second, AI is designed and checked for effectiveness, safety, and reliability. The VA pledges to monitor AI’s impact to ensure it performs as expected without unintended consequences. Algorithms will be stress tested across representative datasets and approval processes will screen for safety issues. Third, AI models are secured from vulnerabilities and misuse. Technical controls will prevent unauthorized access or changes to AI systems. Audits will check for appropriate internal usage per policies. Continual patches and upgrades will maintain security. Fourth, the VA manages AI for fairness, avoiding bias. They will proactively assess datasets and algorithms for potential biases based on protected attributes like race, gender, or age. Biased outputs will be addressed through techniques such as data augmentation, reweighting, and algorithm tweaks. Fifth, transparency explains AI’s role in care. Documentation will detail an AI system’s data sources, methodology, testing, limitations, and integration with clinical workflows. Clinicians and patients will receive education on interpreting AI outputs. Finally, the VA pledges to closely monitor AI systems to sustain trust. The VA will establish oversight processes to quickly identify any declines in reliability or unfair impacts on subgroups. AI models will be retrained as needed based on incoming data patterns.

Each Trustworthy AI Framework principle connects to others in existing frameworks. The purpose principle aligns with human-centric AI focused on benefits. Effectiveness and safety link to technical robustness and risk management principles. Security maps to privacy protection principles. Fairness connects to principles of avoiding bias and discrimination. Transparency corresponds with accountable and explainable AI. Monitoring and accountability tie back to governance principles. Overall, the VA framework aims to guide ethical AI based on context. It offers a model for managing risks and building trust in health care AI.

Combining VA principles with high-reliability safety principles can ensure that AI benefits veterans. The leadership and culture aspects will drive commitment to trustworthy AI practices. Leaders will communicate the importance of responsible AI through words and actions. Culture surveys can assess baseline awareness of AI ethics issues to target education. AI security and fairness will be emphasized as safety critical. The process aspect will institute policies and procedures to uphold AI principles through the project lifecycle. For example, structured testing processes will validate safety. Measurement will collect data on principles like transparency and fairness. Dashboards can track metrics like explainability and biases. A patient-centered approach will incorporate veteran perspectives on AI through participatory design and advisory councils. They can give input on AI explainability and potential biases based on their diverse backgrounds.

Conclusions

Joint principles will lead to successful AI that improves care while proactively managing risks. Involve leaders to stress the necessity of eliminating biases. Build security into the AI development process. Co-design AI transparency features with end users. Closely monitor the impact of AI across safety, fairness, and other principles. Adhering to both Trustworthy AI and high reliability organizations principles will earn veterans’ confidence. Health care organizations like the VA can integrate ethical AI safely via established frameworks. With responsible design and implementation, AI’s potential to enhance care quality, safety, and access can be realized.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Joshua Mueller, Theo Tiffney, John Zachary, and Gil Alterovitz for their excellent work creating the VA Trustworthy Principles. This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has lagged in health care but has considerable potential to improve quality, safety, clinician experience, and access to care. It is being tested in areas like billing, hospital operations, and preventing adverse events (eg, sepsis mortality) with some early success. However, there are still many barriers preventing the widespread use of AI, such as data problems, mismatched rewards, and workplace obstacles. Innovative projects, partnerships, better rewards, and more investment could remove barriers. Implemented reliably and safely, AI can add to what clinicians know, help them work faster, cut costs, and, most importantly, improve patient care.¹

AI can potentially bring several clinical benefits, such as reducing the administrative strain on clinicians and granting them more time for direct patient care. It can also improve diagnostic accuracy by analyzing patient data and diagnostic images, providing differential diagnoses, and increasing access to care by providing medical information and essential online services to patients.²

High Reliability Organizations

High reliability health care organizations have considerable experience safely launching new programs. For example, the Patient Safety Adoption Framework gives practical tips for smoothly rolling out safety initiatives (Table 1). Developed with experts and diverse views, this framework has 5 key areas: leadership, culture and context, process, measurement, and person-centeredness. These address adoption problems, guide leaders step-by-step, and focus on leadership buy-in, safety culture, cooperation, and local customization. Checklists and tools make it systematic to go from ideas to action on patient safety.³

Leadership involves establishing organizational commitment behind new safety programs. This visible commitment signals importance and priorities to others. Leaders model desired behaviors and language around safety, allocate resources, remove obstacles, and keep initiatives energized over time through consistent messaging.⁴ Culture and context recognizes that safety culture differs across units and facilities. Local input tailors programs to fit and examines strengths to build on, like psychological safety. Surveys gauge the existing culture and its need for change. Process details how to plan, design, test, implement, and improve new safety practices and provides a phased roadmap from idea to results. Measurement collects data to drive improvement and show impact. Metrics track progress and allow benchmarking. Person-centeredness puts patients first in safety efforts through participation, education, and transparency.

The Veterans Health Administration piloted a comprehensive high reliability hospital (HRH) model. Over 3 years, the Veterans Health Administration focused on leadership, culture, and process improvement at a hospital. After initiating the model, the pilot hospital improved its safety culture, reported more minor safety issues, and reduced deaths and complications better than other hospitals. The high-reliability approach successfully instilled principles and improved culture and outcomes. The HRH model is set to be expanded to 18 more US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites for further evaluation across diverse settings.⁵

Trustworthy AI Framework

AI systems are growing more powerful and widespread, including in health care. Unfortunately, irresponsible AI can introduce new harm. ChatGPT and other large language models, for example, sometimes are known to provide erroneous information in a compelling way. Clinicians and patients who use such programs can act on such information, which would lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Several frameworks on ethical AI have come from governmental groups.^6-9 In 2023, the VA National AI Institute suggested a Trustworthy AI Framework based on core principles tailored for federal health care. The framework has 6 key principles: purposeful, effective and safe, secure and private, fair and equitable, transparent and explainable, and accountable and monitored (Table 2).¹⁰

First, AI must clearly help veterans while minimizing risks. To ensure purpose, the VA will assess patient and clinician needs and design AI that targets meaningful problems to avoid scope creep or feature bloat. For example, adding new features to the AI software after release can clutter and complicate the interface, making it difficult to use. Rigorous testing will confirm that AI meets intent prior to deployment. Second, AI is designed and checked for effectiveness, safety, and reliability. The VA pledges to monitor AI’s impact to ensure it performs as expected without unintended consequences. Algorithms will be stress tested across representative datasets and approval processes will screen for safety issues. Third, AI models are secured from vulnerabilities and misuse. Technical controls will prevent unauthorized access or changes to AI systems. Audits will check for appropriate internal usage per policies. Continual patches and upgrades will maintain security. Fourth, the VA manages AI for fairness, avoiding bias. They will proactively assess datasets and algorithms for potential biases based on protected attributes like race, gender, or age. Biased outputs will be addressed through techniques such as data augmentation, reweighting, and algorithm tweaks. Fifth, transparency explains AI’s role in care. Documentation will detail an AI system’s data sources, methodology, testing, limitations, and integration with clinical workflows. Clinicians and patients will receive education on interpreting AI outputs. Finally, the VA pledges to closely monitor AI systems to sustain trust. The VA will establish oversight processes to quickly identify any declines in reliability or unfair impacts on subgroups. AI models will be retrained as needed based on incoming data patterns.

Each Trustworthy AI Framework principle connects to others in existing frameworks. The purpose principle aligns with human-centric AI focused on benefits. Effectiveness and safety link to technical robustness and risk management principles. Security maps to privacy protection principles. Fairness connects to principles of avoiding bias and discrimination. Transparency corresponds with accountable and explainable AI. Monitoring and accountability tie back to governance principles. Overall, the VA framework aims to guide ethical AI based on context. It offers a model for managing risks and building trust in health care AI.

Combining VA principles with high-reliability safety principles can ensure that AI benefits veterans. The leadership and culture aspects will drive commitment to trustworthy AI practices. Leaders will communicate the importance of responsible AI through words and actions. Culture surveys can assess baseline awareness of AI ethics issues to target education. AI security and fairness will be emphasized as safety critical. The process aspect will institute policies and procedures to uphold AI principles through the project lifecycle. For example, structured testing processes will validate safety. Measurement will collect data on principles like transparency and fairness. Dashboards can track metrics like explainability and biases. A patient-centered approach will incorporate veteran perspectives on AI through participatory design and advisory councils. They can give input on AI explainability and potential biases based on their diverse backgrounds.

Conclusions

Joint principles will lead to successful AI that improves care while proactively managing risks. Involve leaders to stress the necessity of eliminating biases. Build security into the AI development process. Co-design AI transparency features with end users. Closely monitor the impact of AI across safety, fairness, and other principles. Adhering to both Trustworthy AI and high reliability organizations principles will earn veterans’ confidence. Health care organizations like the VA can integrate ethical AI safely via established frameworks. With responsible design and implementation, AI’s potential to enhance care quality, safety, and access can be realized.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Joshua Mueller, Theo Tiffney, John Zachary, and Gil Alterovitz for their excellent work creating the VA Trustworthy Principles. This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that had progressed despite treatment with novel hormonal therapy had a slight but statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with a combination of a targeted agent and immunotherapy compared with a second-line novel hormonal therapy.

The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. 

“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

­­The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
 

Study Design Questioned

That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.

Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).

“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.

He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”

Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.

“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.

For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.

“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
 

Real-World Practice

“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.

He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.

In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.

He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
 

CONTACT-02 Details

Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median ­PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.

The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.

There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.

Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
 

Safety Data

The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.

Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.

In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.­­

CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.

Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that had progressed despite treatment with novel hormonal therapy had a slight but statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with a combination of a targeted agent and immunotherapy compared with a second-line novel hormonal therapy.

The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. 

“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

­­The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
 

Study Design Questioned

That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.

Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).

“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.

He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”

Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.

“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.

For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.

“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
 

Real-World Practice

“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.

He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.

In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.

He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
 

CONTACT-02 Details

Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median ­PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.

The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.

There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.

Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
 

Safety Data

The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.

Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.

In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.­­

CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.

Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that had progressed despite treatment with novel hormonal therapy had a slight but statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with a combination of a targeted agent and immunotherapy compared with a second-line novel hormonal therapy.

The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. 

“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

­­The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
 

Study Design Questioned

That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.

Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).

“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.

He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”

Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.

“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.

For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.

“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
 

Real-World Practice

“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.

He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.

In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.

He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
 

CONTACT-02 Details

Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median ­PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.

The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.

There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.

Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
 

Safety Data

The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.

Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.

In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.­­

CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.

Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.

It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Perhaps the beginning of a new year is a good time to review how different medications can have side effects beyond the disease state they’re used to address. Among the most common complications of many medications is the potential to disrupt glycemic control. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.

1. Glucocorticoids

Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.

Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.

2. Antipsychotic Therapy

Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.

Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.

3. Thiazide Diuretics

Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.

Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.

4. Statin Therapy

Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.

5. Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.

Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.

Honorable Mention

Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.

A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.

Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.

Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
 

Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Perhaps the beginning of a new year is a good time to review how different medications can have side effects beyond the disease state they’re used to address. Among the most common complications of many medications is the potential to disrupt glycemic control. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.

1. Glucocorticoids

Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.

Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.

2. Antipsychotic Therapy

Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.

Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.

3. Thiazide Diuretics

Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.

Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.

4. Statin Therapy

Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.

5. Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.

Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.

Honorable Mention

Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.

A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.

Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.

Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
 

Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Perhaps the beginning of a new year is a good time to review how different medications can have side effects beyond the disease state they’re used to address. Among the most common complications of many medications is the potential to disrupt glycemic control. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.

1. Glucocorticoids

Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.

Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.

2. Antipsychotic Therapy

Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.

Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.

3. Thiazide Diuretics

Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.

Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.

4. Statin Therapy

Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.

5. Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.

Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.

Honorable Mention

Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.

A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.

Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.

Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
 

Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid the current wave of winter respiratory virus cases, influenza (types A and B) leads the way with the highest number of emergency room visits, followed closely by COVID-19, thanks to the JN.1 variant, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). With various similarities and differences in disease presentations, how challenging is it for physician’s to distinguish between, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 vs RSV and influenza? 

While these three respiratory viruses often have similar presentations, you may often find that patients with COVID-19 experience more fever, dry cough, and labored breathing, according to Cyrus Munguti, MD, assistant professor of medicine at KU Medical Center and hospitalist at Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, Kansas. 

“COVID-19 patients tend to have trouble breathing because the alveoli are affected and get inflammation and fluid accumulating in the lungs, and they end up having little to no oxygen,” said Dr. Munguti. “When we check their vital signs, patients with COVID tend to have hypoxemia [meaning saturations are less than 88% or 90% depending on the guidelines you follow].”

Patients with RSV and influenza tend to have more upper respiratory symptoms, like runny nose, sternutation — which later can progress to a cough in the upper airways, Dr. Munguti said. Unlike with COVID-19, patients with RSV and influenza — generally until they are very sick — often do not experience hypoxemia.

Inflammation in the airways can form as a result of all three viruses. Furthermore, bacteria that live in these airways could lead to a secondary bacterial infection in the upper respiratory and lower respiratory tracts — which could then cause pneumonia, Dr. Munguti said.

Another note: Changes in COVID-19 variants over the years have made it increasingly difficult to differentiate COVID-19 symptoms from those of RSV and influenza, according to Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, pulmonologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine. “The Alpha through Delta variants really were a lot more lung tissue invading,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “With the COVID-19 Omicron family — its capabilities are similar to what flu and RSV have done over the years. It’s more airway-invading.”

It’s critical to understand that diagnosing these diseases based on symptoms alone can be quite fickle, according to Dr. Galiatsatos. Objective tests, either at home or in a laboratory, are preferred. This is largely because disease presentation can depend on the host factor that the virus enters into, said Dr. Galiatsatos. For example, virus symptoms may look different for a patient with asthma and for someone with heart disease.

With children being among the most vulnerable for severe respiratory illness, testing and treatment are paramount and can be quite accurate in seasons where respiratory viruses thrive, according to Stan Spinner, MD, chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care. “When individuals are tested for either of these conditions when the prevalence in the community is low, we tend to see false positive results.” 

Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care’s 12 sites offer COVID-19 and influenza antigen tests that have results ready in around 10 minutes. RSV testing, on the other hand, is limited to around half of the Texas Children’s Pediatrics and none of the urgent care locations, as the test can only be administered through a nasal swab conducted by a physician. As there is no specific treatment or therapy for RSV, the benefits of RSV testing can actually be quite low — often leading to frustrated parents regarding next steps after diagnosis.

“There are a number of respiratory viruses that may present with similar symptoms as RSV, and some of these viruses may even lead to much of the same adverse outcomes as the RSV virus,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “Consequently, our physicians need to help parents understand this and give them guidance as to when to seek medical attention for worsening symptoms.”

There are two new RSV immunizations to treat certain demographics of patients, Dr. Spinner added. One is an RSV vaccine for infants under 8 months old, though there is limited supply. There is also an RSV vaccine available for pregnant women (between 32 and 36 weeks gestation) that has proved to be effective in fending off RSV infections in newborns up to 6 months old. 

Physicians should remain diligent in stressing to patients that vaccinations against COVID-19 and influenza play a key role in keeping their families safe during seasons of staggering respiratory infections.

“These vaccines are extremely safe, and while they may not always prevent infection, these vaccines are extremely effective in preventing more serious consequences, such as hospitalization or death,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid the current wave of winter respiratory virus cases, influenza (types A and B) leads the way with the highest number of emergency room visits, followed closely by COVID-19, thanks to the JN.1 variant, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). With various similarities and differences in disease presentations, how challenging is it for physician’s to distinguish between, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 vs RSV and influenza? 

While these three respiratory viruses often have similar presentations, you may often find that patients with COVID-19 experience more fever, dry cough, and labored breathing, according to Cyrus Munguti, MD, assistant professor of medicine at KU Medical Center and hospitalist at Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, Kansas. 

“COVID-19 patients tend to have trouble breathing because the alveoli are affected and get inflammation and fluid accumulating in the lungs, and they end up having little to no oxygen,” said Dr. Munguti. “When we check their vital signs, patients with COVID tend to have hypoxemia [meaning saturations are less than 88% or 90% depending on the guidelines you follow].”

Patients with RSV and influenza tend to have more upper respiratory symptoms, like runny nose, sternutation — which later can progress to a cough in the upper airways, Dr. Munguti said. Unlike with COVID-19, patients with RSV and influenza — generally until they are very sick — often do not experience hypoxemia.

Inflammation in the airways can form as a result of all three viruses. Furthermore, bacteria that live in these airways could lead to a secondary bacterial infection in the upper respiratory and lower respiratory tracts — which could then cause pneumonia, Dr. Munguti said.

Another note: Changes in COVID-19 variants over the years have made it increasingly difficult to differentiate COVID-19 symptoms from those of RSV and influenza, according to Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, pulmonologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine. “The Alpha through Delta variants really were a lot more lung tissue invading,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “With the COVID-19 Omicron family — its capabilities are similar to what flu and RSV have done over the years. It’s more airway-invading.”

It’s critical to understand that diagnosing these diseases based on symptoms alone can be quite fickle, according to Dr. Galiatsatos. Objective tests, either at home or in a laboratory, are preferred. This is largely because disease presentation can depend on the host factor that the virus enters into, said Dr. Galiatsatos. For example, virus symptoms may look different for a patient with asthma and for someone with heart disease.

With children being among the most vulnerable for severe respiratory illness, testing and treatment are paramount and can be quite accurate in seasons where respiratory viruses thrive, according to Stan Spinner, MD, chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care. “When individuals are tested for either of these conditions when the prevalence in the community is low, we tend to see false positive results.” 

Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care’s 12 sites offer COVID-19 and influenza antigen tests that have results ready in around 10 minutes. RSV testing, on the other hand, is limited to around half of the Texas Children’s Pediatrics and none of the urgent care locations, as the test can only be administered through a nasal swab conducted by a physician. As there is no specific treatment or therapy for RSV, the benefits of RSV testing can actually be quite low — often leading to frustrated parents regarding next steps after diagnosis.

“There are a number of respiratory viruses that may present with similar symptoms as RSV, and some of these viruses may even lead to much of the same adverse outcomes as the RSV virus,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “Consequently, our physicians need to help parents understand this and give them guidance as to when to seek medical attention for worsening symptoms.”

There are two new RSV immunizations to treat certain demographics of patients, Dr. Spinner added. One is an RSV vaccine for infants under 8 months old, though there is limited supply. There is also an RSV vaccine available for pregnant women (between 32 and 36 weeks gestation) that has proved to be effective in fending off RSV infections in newborns up to 6 months old. 

Physicians should remain diligent in stressing to patients that vaccinations against COVID-19 and influenza play a key role in keeping their families safe during seasons of staggering respiratory infections.

“These vaccines are extremely safe, and while they may not always prevent infection, these vaccines are extremely effective in preventing more serious consequences, such as hospitalization or death,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid the current wave of winter respiratory virus cases, influenza (types A and B) leads the way with the highest number of emergency room visits, followed closely by COVID-19, thanks to the JN.1 variant, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). With various similarities and differences in disease presentations, how challenging is it for physician’s to distinguish between, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 vs RSV and influenza? 

While these three respiratory viruses often have similar presentations, you may often find that patients with COVID-19 experience more fever, dry cough, and labored breathing, according to Cyrus Munguti, MD, assistant professor of medicine at KU Medical Center and hospitalist at Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, Kansas. 

“COVID-19 patients tend to have trouble breathing because the alveoli are affected and get inflammation and fluid accumulating in the lungs, and they end up having little to no oxygen,” said Dr. Munguti. “When we check their vital signs, patients with COVID tend to have hypoxemia [meaning saturations are less than 88% or 90% depending on the guidelines you follow].”

Patients with RSV and influenza tend to have more upper respiratory symptoms, like runny nose, sternutation — which later can progress to a cough in the upper airways, Dr. Munguti said. Unlike with COVID-19, patients with RSV and influenza — generally until they are very sick — often do not experience hypoxemia.

Inflammation in the airways can form as a result of all three viruses. Furthermore, bacteria that live in these airways could lead to a secondary bacterial infection in the upper respiratory and lower respiratory tracts — which could then cause pneumonia, Dr. Munguti said.

Another note: Changes in COVID-19 variants over the years have made it increasingly difficult to differentiate COVID-19 symptoms from those of RSV and influenza, according to Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, pulmonologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine. “The Alpha through Delta variants really were a lot more lung tissue invading,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “With the COVID-19 Omicron family — its capabilities are similar to what flu and RSV have done over the years. It’s more airway-invading.”

It’s critical to understand that diagnosing these diseases based on symptoms alone can be quite fickle, according to Dr. Galiatsatos. Objective tests, either at home or in a laboratory, are preferred. This is largely because disease presentation can depend on the host factor that the virus enters into, said Dr. Galiatsatos. For example, virus symptoms may look different for a patient with asthma and for someone with heart disease.

With children being among the most vulnerable for severe respiratory illness, testing and treatment are paramount and can be quite accurate in seasons where respiratory viruses thrive, according to Stan Spinner, MD, chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care. “When individuals are tested for either of these conditions when the prevalence in the community is low, we tend to see false positive results.” 

Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care’s 12 sites offer COVID-19 and influenza antigen tests that have results ready in around 10 minutes. RSV testing, on the other hand, is limited to around half of the Texas Children’s Pediatrics and none of the urgent care locations, as the test can only be administered through a nasal swab conducted by a physician. As there is no specific treatment or therapy for RSV, the benefits of RSV testing can actually be quite low — often leading to frustrated parents regarding next steps after diagnosis.

“There are a number of respiratory viruses that may present with similar symptoms as RSV, and some of these viruses may even lead to much of the same adverse outcomes as the RSV virus,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “Consequently, our physicians need to help parents understand this and give them guidance as to when to seek medical attention for worsening symptoms.”

There are two new RSV immunizations to treat certain demographics of patients, Dr. Spinner added. One is an RSV vaccine for infants under 8 months old, though there is limited supply. There is also an RSV vaccine available for pregnant women (between 32 and 36 weeks gestation) that has proved to be effective in fending off RSV infections in newborns up to 6 months old. 

Physicians should remain diligent in stressing to patients that vaccinations against COVID-19 and influenza play a key role in keeping their families safe during seasons of staggering respiratory infections.

“These vaccines are extremely safe, and while they may not always prevent infection, these vaccines are extremely effective in preventing more serious consequences, such as hospitalization or death,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The benefit of immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy for programmed death–ligand 1–positive (PD-L1+) metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has been shown in both the IMpassion130 and KEYNOTE-355 trials.^[2,3] However, the IMpassion131 trial, which evaluated atezolizumab plus paclitaxel, did not show a progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) benefit vs paclitaxel alone in PD-L1+ mTNBC.^[4] Various explanations for these divergent results have been proposed, including the inherent properties of the chemotherapy backbone, patient populations, and the heterogenous nature of TNBC, which can affect response to immunotherapy. Of present, the various KEYNOTE-355 regimens (pembrolizumab plus investigator's choice chemotherapy [nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine-carboplatin]) are US Food and Drug Administration approved for PD-L1+ mTNBC in the first-line setting. The phase 2 randomized TBCRC 043 trial investigated the effect of atezolizumab with carboplatin in patients with mTNBC and further looked at clinical and molecular correlates of response (Lehmann et al). A total of 106 patients were randomly assigned to carboplatin or carboplatin plus atezolizumab; the combination improved PFS (median PFS, 4.1 vs 2.2 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; P = .05) and OS (12.6 vs 8.6 mo; HR 0.60; P = .03). Grade 3/4 serious adverse events were more common with carboplatin-atezolizumab vs carboplatin alone (41% vs 8%). In addition, an association of better responses with PD-L1 immunotherapy was seen in patients with obesity, uncontrolled blood glucose levels, high tumor mutation burden, and increased tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. These data support the role of immunotherapy in mTNBC, highlight tumor heterogeneity within this subtype and encourage correlative studies to better define which patients benefit from immunotherapy.

Various studies have demonstrated the favorable impact of physical activity on breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women.^[5] However, data in premenopausal women is less clear. Various mechanisms connecting physical activity to premenopausal breast cancer risk have been proposed including the effect of exercise on sex steroid hormones, fasting insulin levels, and inflammation.^[6] A pooled analysis from 19 cohort studies including 547,601 premenopausal women, with 10,231 incident cases of breast cancer, aimed to examine the relationship between leisure-time physical activity (sports, exercise, recreational walking) and breast cancer risk in young women (Timmins et al). Higher (90th percentile) vs lower (10th percentile) levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with a 10% reduction in breast cancer risk after adjustment for body mass index (BMI; adjusted HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.85-0.95; P < .001). They also found a significant reduction in risk: 32% (HR 0.68; P = .01) and 9% (HR 0.91; P = .005) for women with underweight (BMI < 18.5) and with average weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), respectively. Further, the effect of physical activity was most pronounced in the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–enriched breast cancer subtype, wherein higher vs lower levels of activity were associated with an estimated 45% reduction in breast cancer risk (adjusted HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.82). These findings support the beneficial role of aerobic exercise and healthy body weight on breast cancer risk among premenopausal women and highlight the value of incorporating this information into counseling for our patients.

Additional References

1. Figueroa JD, Gierach GL, Duggan MA, et al. Risk factors for breast cancer development by tumor characteristics among women with benign breast disease. Breast Cancer Res. 2021;23:34. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01410-1 Source
2. Schmid P, Adams S, Rugo HS, et al, for the IMpassion130 Trial Investigators. Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2108-2121. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1809615 Source
3. Cortes J, Rugo HS, Cescon DW, et al, for the KEYNOTE-355 Investigators. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:217-226. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2202809 Source
4. Miles D, Gligorov J, André F, et al, on behalf of the IMpassion131 investigators. Primary results from IMpassion131, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase III trial of first-line paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:994-1004. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.05.801 Source
5. Eliassen AH, Hankinson SE, Rosner B, et al. Physical activity and risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1758-1764. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.363 Source
6. Swain CTV, Drummond AE, Boing L, et al. Linking physical activity to breast cancer via sex hormones, part 1: The effect of physical activity on sex steroid hormones. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022;31:16-27. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0437 Source

The benefit of immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy for programmed death–ligand 1–positive (PD-L1+) metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has been shown in both the IMpassion130 and KEYNOTE-355 trials.^[2,3] However, the IMpassion131 trial, which evaluated atezolizumab plus paclitaxel, did not show a progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) benefit vs paclitaxel alone in PD-L1+ mTNBC.^[4] Various explanations for these divergent results have been proposed, including the inherent properties of the chemotherapy backbone, patient populations, and the heterogenous nature of TNBC, which can affect response to immunotherapy. Of present, the various KEYNOTE-355 regimens (pembrolizumab plus investigator's choice chemotherapy [nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine-carboplatin]) are US Food and Drug Administration approved for PD-L1+ mTNBC in the first-line setting. The phase 2 randomized TBCRC 043 trial investigated the effect of atezolizumab with carboplatin in patients with mTNBC and further looked at clinical and molecular correlates of response (Lehmann et al). A total of 106 patients were randomly assigned to carboplatin or carboplatin plus atezolizumab; the combination improved PFS (median PFS, 4.1 vs 2.2 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; P = .05) and OS (12.6 vs 8.6 mo; HR 0.60; P = .03). Grade 3/4 serious adverse events were more common with carboplatin-atezolizumab vs carboplatin alone (41% vs 8%). In addition, an association of better responses with PD-L1 immunotherapy was seen in patients with obesity, uncontrolled blood glucose levels, high tumor mutation burden, and increased tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. These data support the role of immunotherapy in mTNBC, highlight tumor heterogeneity within this subtype and encourage correlative studies to better define which patients benefit from immunotherapy.

Various studies have demonstrated the favorable impact of physical activity on breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women.^[5] However, data in premenopausal women is less clear. Various mechanisms connecting physical activity to premenopausal breast cancer risk have been proposed including the effect of exercise on sex steroid hormones, fasting insulin levels, and inflammation.^[6] A pooled analysis from 19 cohort studies including 547,601 premenopausal women, with 10,231 incident cases of breast cancer, aimed to examine the relationship between leisure-time physical activity (sports, exercise, recreational walking) and breast cancer risk in young women (Timmins et al). Higher (90th percentile) vs lower (10th percentile) levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with a 10% reduction in breast cancer risk after adjustment for body mass index (BMI; adjusted HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.85-0.95; P < .001). They also found a significant reduction in risk: 32% (HR 0.68; P = .01) and 9% (HR 0.91; P = .005) for women with underweight (BMI < 18.5) and with average weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), respectively. Further, the effect of physical activity was most pronounced in the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–enriched breast cancer subtype, wherein higher vs lower levels of activity were associated with an estimated 45% reduction in breast cancer risk (adjusted HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.82). These findings support the beneficial role of aerobic exercise and healthy body weight on breast cancer risk among premenopausal women and highlight the value of incorporating this information into counseling for our patients.

Additional References

1. Figueroa JD, Gierach GL, Duggan MA, et al. Risk factors for breast cancer development by tumor characteristics among women with benign breast disease. Breast Cancer Res. 2021;23:34. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01410-1 Source
2. Schmid P, Adams S, Rugo HS, et al, for the IMpassion130 Trial Investigators. Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2108-2121. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1809615 Source
3. Cortes J, Rugo HS, Cescon DW, et al, for the KEYNOTE-355 Investigators. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:217-226. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2202809 Source
4. Miles D, Gligorov J, André F, et al, on behalf of the IMpassion131 investigators. Primary results from IMpassion131, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase III trial of first-line paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:994-1004. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.05.801 Source
5. Eliassen AH, Hankinson SE, Rosner B, et al. Physical activity and risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1758-1764. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.363 Source
6. Swain CTV, Drummond AE, Boing L, et al. Linking physical activity to breast cancer via sex hormones, part 1: The effect of physical activity on sex steroid hormones. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022;31:16-27. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0437 Source

The benefit of immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy for programmed death–ligand 1–positive (PD-L1+) metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has been shown in both the IMpassion130 and KEYNOTE-355 trials.^[2,3] However, the IMpassion131 trial, which evaluated atezolizumab plus paclitaxel, did not show a progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) benefit vs paclitaxel alone in PD-L1+ mTNBC.^[4] Various explanations for these divergent results have been proposed, including the inherent properties of the chemotherapy backbone, patient populations, and the heterogenous nature of TNBC, which can affect response to immunotherapy. Of present, the various KEYNOTE-355 regimens (pembrolizumab plus investigator's choice chemotherapy [nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine-carboplatin]) are US Food and Drug Administration approved for PD-L1+ mTNBC in the first-line setting. The phase 2 randomized TBCRC 043 trial investigated the effect of atezolizumab with carboplatin in patients with mTNBC and further looked at clinical and molecular correlates of response (Lehmann et al). A total of 106 patients were randomly assigned to carboplatin or carboplatin plus atezolizumab; the combination improved PFS (median PFS, 4.1 vs 2.2 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; P = .05) and OS (12.6 vs 8.6 mo; HR 0.60; P = .03). Grade 3/4 serious adverse events were more common with carboplatin-atezolizumab vs carboplatin alone (41% vs 8%). In addition, an association of better responses with PD-L1 immunotherapy was seen in patients with obesity, uncontrolled blood glucose levels, high tumor mutation burden, and increased tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. These data support the role of immunotherapy in mTNBC, highlight tumor heterogeneity within this subtype and encourage correlative studies to better define which patients benefit from immunotherapy.

Various studies have demonstrated the favorable impact of physical activity on breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women.^[5] However, data in premenopausal women is less clear. Various mechanisms connecting physical activity to premenopausal breast cancer risk have been proposed including the effect of exercise on sex steroid hormones, fasting insulin levels, and inflammation.^[6] A pooled analysis from 19 cohort studies including 547,601 premenopausal women, with 10,231 incident cases of breast cancer, aimed to examine the relationship between leisure-time physical activity (sports, exercise, recreational walking) and breast cancer risk in young women (Timmins et al). Higher (90th percentile) vs lower (10th percentile) levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with a 10% reduction in breast cancer risk after adjustment for body mass index (BMI; adjusted HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.85-0.95; P < .001). They also found a significant reduction in risk: 32% (HR 0.68; P = .01) and 9% (HR 0.91; P = .005) for women with underweight (BMI < 18.5) and with average weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), respectively. Further, the effect of physical activity was most pronounced in the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–enriched breast cancer subtype, wherein higher vs lower levels of activity were associated with an estimated 45% reduction in breast cancer risk (adjusted HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.82). These findings support the beneficial role of aerobic exercise and healthy body weight on breast cancer risk among premenopausal women and highlight the value of incorporating this information into counseling for our patients.

Additional References

1. Figueroa JD, Gierach GL, Duggan MA, et al. Risk factors for breast cancer development by tumor characteristics among women with benign breast disease. Breast Cancer Res. 2021;23:34. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01410-1 Source
2. Schmid P, Adams S, Rugo HS, et al, for the IMpassion130 Trial Investigators. Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2108-2121. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1809615 Source
3. Cortes J, Rugo HS, Cescon DW, et al, for the KEYNOTE-355 Investigators. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:217-226. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2202809 Source
4. Miles D, Gligorov J, André F, et al, on behalf of the IMpassion131 investigators. Primary results from IMpassion131, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase III trial of first-line paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:994-1004. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.05.801 Source
5. Eliassen AH, Hankinson SE, Rosner B, et al. Physical activity and risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1758-1764. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.363 Source
6. Swain CTV, Drummond AE, Boing L, et al. Linking physical activity to breast cancer via sex hormones, part 1: The effect of physical activity on sex steroid hormones. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022;31:16-27. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0437 Source

Two drugs delivered in combination are better than one after the other for the first-line treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer bearing homologous recombination-repair mutations.

That’s the conclusion of investigators in the phase 2 BRCAAway trial, which compared a combination of abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone plus olaparib (Lynparza) against sequential therapy with the same agents.

At the time of data cutoff, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was 39 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 8.4 months for those assigned to abiraterone/prednisone, and 14 months for those assigned to olaparib monotherapy, reported Maha Hussain, MD, of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago.

“In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC] and BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, abiraterone and prednisone plus olaparib was well tolerated and resulted in better progression-free survival and response rates vs. single-agent olaparib or abiraterone/prednisone,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Although the study allowed crossover between the single-agent arms at the time of progression, only a few patients made the switch. Nonetheless, in these patients the PFS with the frontline combination was superior to that of sequential therapy, she noted.
 

Study Rationale and Design

Germline or somatic mutations in genes encoding for homologous recombination-repair occur in about 20% of men with mCRPC. Olaparib, a PARP1 (poly-adp ribose polymerase-1) inhibitor, interacts with androgen signaling, and preclinical studies have shown that castration-resistant prostate tumor cells have increased PARP1 activity. In addition, PARP1 has been shown preclinically to synergize with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) such as abiraterone, Dr. Hussain explained.

The BRCAAway trial was designed to test whether co-targeting the androgen receptor and PARP1 could result in higher and more durable responses than current frontline therapies in patients with mCRPC with DNA-damage response mutations.

Patients with mCRPC with no prior exposure to either a PARP1 inhibitor, androgen receptor inhibitor, or mCRPC-directed chemotherapy underwent next-generation sequencing and germline testing of tumor tissues, and those patients found to have inactivating BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to either abiraterone 1000 mg daily plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily (19 patients); olaparib 300 mg twice daily (21 patients); or to the combination (21 patients).

The primary endpoint was radiographic PFS according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria, clinical assessment, or death.

As noted, the median PFS was 8.4 months with abiraterone/prednisone, 14 months with olaparib, and 39 months with the combination.

Secondary endpoints also favored the combination therapy arm, with objective response rates of 22%, 14%, and 33%, respectively; PSA response rates of 61%, 67% and 95%; and undetectable PSA response rates of 17%, 14%, and 33%.

A total of 8 of 19 patients on abiraterone were crossed over to olaparib, and 8 of 21 initially assigned to olaparib were crossed over to abiraterone. In these patients the median PFS from crossover was 8.3 and 7.2 months, respectively. In each crossover group the median PFS from the time of randomization was 16 months.

There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths reported in any of the study arms, and “essentially when you look at the adverse events, they pretty much are consistent with what you would expect to see with these particular agents,” Dr. Hussain said.

“Overall the patients were tolerating the treatment well,” she added.
 

Practice Changing with Caveats

Kim N. Chi, MD, FRCPC, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant, said that the strengths of the study included an olaparib monotherapy arm — something that was missing from phase 3 trials — that provides insights into how PARP inhibitors perform in this population. He also applauded the inclusion of clinical assessment as a primary endpoint, noting that “this is what we do in routine practice, and therefore, the generalizability of the trial becomes more evident.”

The crossover design provides important information about whether an upfront combination or a sequential therapy approach is more effective, as well, he added.

He pointed out, however, that the trial was limited by small sample size and by its “horse race” design rather than as a comparison trial.

“So how does the BRCAAway trial change our practice? Despite the limitations, I think it does support an upfront PARP inhibitor-ARPI combination as firstline therapy for HRR gene-mutated metastatic CRPC. These data suggest synergy, and most importantly, there is no loss of opportunity [for more effective therapies]. However, the limitations of the trial will not end this debate today,” he said.

The trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Both Dr. Hussain and Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, consulting/advising, and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and others.

Two drugs delivered in combination are better than one after the other for the first-line treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer bearing homologous recombination-repair mutations.

That’s the conclusion of investigators in the phase 2 BRCAAway trial, which compared a combination of abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone plus olaparib (Lynparza) against sequential therapy with the same agents.

At the time of data cutoff, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was 39 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 8.4 months for those assigned to abiraterone/prednisone, and 14 months for those assigned to olaparib monotherapy, reported Maha Hussain, MD, of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago.

“In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC] and BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, abiraterone and prednisone plus olaparib was well tolerated and resulted in better progression-free survival and response rates vs. single-agent olaparib or abiraterone/prednisone,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Although the study allowed crossover between the single-agent arms at the time of progression, only a few patients made the switch. Nonetheless, in these patients the PFS with the frontline combination was superior to that of sequential therapy, she noted.
 

Study Rationale and Design

Germline or somatic mutations in genes encoding for homologous recombination-repair occur in about 20% of men with mCRPC. Olaparib, a PARP1 (poly-adp ribose polymerase-1) inhibitor, interacts with androgen signaling, and preclinical studies have shown that castration-resistant prostate tumor cells have increased PARP1 activity. In addition, PARP1 has been shown preclinically to synergize with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) such as abiraterone, Dr. Hussain explained.

The BRCAAway trial was designed to test whether co-targeting the androgen receptor and PARP1 could result in higher and more durable responses than current frontline therapies in patients with mCRPC with DNA-damage response mutations.

Patients with mCRPC with no prior exposure to either a PARP1 inhibitor, androgen receptor inhibitor, or mCRPC-directed chemotherapy underwent next-generation sequencing and germline testing of tumor tissues, and those patients found to have inactivating BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to either abiraterone 1000 mg daily plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily (19 patients); olaparib 300 mg twice daily (21 patients); or to the combination (21 patients).

The primary endpoint was radiographic PFS according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria, clinical assessment, or death.

As noted, the median PFS was 8.4 months with abiraterone/prednisone, 14 months with olaparib, and 39 months with the combination.

Secondary endpoints also favored the combination therapy arm, with objective response rates of 22%, 14%, and 33%, respectively; PSA response rates of 61%, 67% and 95%; and undetectable PSA response rates of 17%, 14%, and 33%.

A total of 8 of 19 patients on abiraterone were crossed over to olaparib, and 8 of 21 initially assigned to olaparib were crossed over to abiraterone. In these patients the median PFS from crossover was 8.3 and 7.2 months, respectively. In each crossover group the median PFS from the time of randomization was 16 months.

There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths reported in any of the study arms, and “essentially when you look at the adverse events, they pretty much are consistent with what you would expect to see with these particular agents,” Dr. Hussain said.

“Overall the patients were tolerating the treatment well,” she added.
 

Practice Changing with Caveats

Kim N. Chi, MD, FRCPC, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant, said that the strengths of the study included an olaparib monotherapy arm — something that was missing from phase 3 trials — that provides insights into how PARP inhibitors perform in this population. He also applauded the inclusion of clinical assessment as a primary endpoint, noting that “this is what we do in routine practice, and therefore, the generalizability of the trial becomes more evident.”

The crossover design provides important information about whether an upfront combination or a sequential therapy approach is more effective, as well, he added.

He pointed out, however, that the trial was limited by small sample size and by its “horse race” design rather than as a comparison trial.

“So how does the BRCAAway trial change our practice? Despite the limitations, I think it does support an upfront PARP inhibitor-ARPI combination as firstline therapy for HRR gene-mutated metastatic CRPC. These data suggest synergy, and most importantly, there is no loss of opportunity [for more effective therapies]. However, the limitations of the trial will not end this debate today,” he said.

The trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Both Dr. Hussain and Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, consulting/advising, and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and others.

Two drugs delivered in combination are better than one after the other for the first-line treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer bearing homologous recombination-repair mutations.

That’s the conclusion of investigators in the phase 2 BRCAAway trial, which compared a combination of abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone plus olaparib (Lynparza) against sequential therapy with the same agents.

At the time of data cutoff, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was 39 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 8.4 months for those assigned to abiraterone/prednisone, and 14 months for those assigned to olaparib monotherapy, reported Maha Hussain, MD, of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago.

“In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC] and BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, abiraterone and prednisone plus olaparib was well tolerated and resulted in better progression-free survival and response rates vs. single-agent olaparib or abiraterone/prednisone,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Although the study allowed crossover between the single-agent arms at the time of progression, only a few patients made the switch. Nonetheless, in these patients the PFS with the frontline combination was superior to that of sequential therapy, she noted.
 

Study Rationale and Design

Germline or somatic mutations in genes encoding for homologous recombination-repair occur in about 20% of men with mCRPC. Olaparib, a PARP1 (poly-adp ribose polymerase-1) inhibitor, interacts with androgen signaling, and preclinical studies have shown that castration-resistant prostate tumor cells have increased PARP1 activity. In addition, PARP1 has been shown preclinically to synergize with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) such as abiraterone, Dr. Hussain explained.

The BRCAAway trial was designed to test whether co-targeting the androgen receptor and PARP1 could result in higher and more durable responses than current frontline therapies in patients with mCRPC with DNA-damage response mutations.

Patients with mCRPC with no prior exposure to either a PARP1 inhibitor, androgen receptor inhibitor, or mCRPC-directed chemotherapy underwent next-generation sequencing and germline testing of tumor tissues, and those patients found to have inactivating BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to either abiraterone 1000 mg daily plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily (19 patients); olaparib 300 mg twice daily (21 patients); or to the combination (21 patients).

The primary endpoint was radiographic PFS according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria, clinical assessment, or death.

As noted, the median PFS was 8.4 months with abiraterone/prednisone, 14 months with olaparib, and 39 months with the combination.

Secondary endpoints also favored the combination therapy arm, with objective response rates of 22%, 14%, and 33%, respectively; PSA response rates of 61%, 67% and 95%; and undetectable PSA response rates of 17%, 14%, and 33%.

A total of 8 of 19 patients on abiraterone were crossed over to olaparib, and 8 of 21 initially assigned to olaparib were crossed over to abiraterone. In these patients the median PFS from crossover was 8.3 and 7.2 months, respectively. In each crossover group the median PFS from the time of randomization was 16 months.

There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths reported in any of the study arms, and “essentially when you look at the adverse events, they pretty much are consistent with what you would expect to see with these particular agents,” Dr. Hussain said.

“Overall the patients were tolerating the treatment well,” she added.
 

Practice Changing with Caveats

Kim N. Chi, MD, FRCPC, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant, said that the strengths of the study included an olaparib monotherapy arm — something that was missing from phase 3 trials — that provides insights into how PARP inhibitors perform in this population. He also applauded the inclusion of clinical assessment as a primary endpoint, noting that “this is what we do in routine practice, and therefore, the generalizability of the trial becomes more evident.”

The crossover design provides important information about whether an upfront combination or a sequential therapy approach is more effective, as well, he added.

He pointed out, however, that the trial was limited by small sample size and by its “horse race” design rather than as a comparison trial.

“So how does the BRCAAway trial change our practice? Despite the limitations, I think it does support an upfront PARP inhibitor-ARPI combination as firstline therapy for HRR gene-mutated metastatic CRPC. These data suggest synergy, and most importantly, there is no loss of opportunity [for more effective therapies]. However, the limitations of the trial will not end this debate today,” he said.

The trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Both Dr. Hussain and Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, consulting/advising, and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and others.

Men with advanced prostate cancer undergoing local therapies such as radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy experience significantly more gastrointestinal and sexual issues, along with problems with incontinence, in the following years, than systemically treated patients. These were the findings of a retrospective cohort study in JAMA Network Open.

The standard treatment of advanced prostate cancer is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). “The role of local therapy has been debated for several years. Studies have shown that radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy can improve patient survival under certain conditions,” said Hubert Kübler, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Urology and Pediatric Urology at the University Hospital Würzburg in Germany. “At academic centers, a local therapy is pursued for oligometastatic patients if they are fit enough.”

The hope is to spare patients the side effects of ADT over an extended period and thus improve their quality of life. “But what impact does local therapy itself have on the men’s quality of life, especially considering that the survival advantage gained may be relatively small?” wrote study author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and her colleagues.

Examining Side Effects

This question has not been thoroughly examined yet. “To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies investigating the side effects of local therapy in men with advanced prostate cancer for up to 5 years after treatment,” wrote the authors.

The cohort study included 5500 US veterans who were diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer between January 1999 and December 2013. The tumors were in stage T4 (tumor is fixed or has spread to adjacent structures), with regional lymph node metastases (N1), and partially detectable distant metastases (M1).

The average age was 68.7 years, and 31% received local therapy (eg, radiation therapy, radical prostatectomy, or both), and 69% received systemic therapy (eg, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both).

Types of Local Therapy

Combining radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy “diminishes the meaningfulness of the study results,” according to Dr. Kübler. “The issue should have been analyzed in much finer detail. Studies clearly show, for example, that radiation therapy consistently performs slightly worse than prostatectomy in terms of gastrointestinal complaints.”

In their paper, the researchers reported that the prevalence of side effects was high, regardless of the therapy. Overall, 916 men (75.2%) with initial local therapy and 897 men (67.1%) with initial systemic therapy reported experiencing at least one side effect lasting more than 2 years and up to 5 years.

In the first year after the initial therapy, men who underwent local therapy, compared with those who underwent systemic therapy, experienced more of the following symptoms:

• Gastrointestinal issues (odds ratio [OR], 4.08)
• Pain (OR, 1.57)
• Sexual dysfunction (OR, 2.96)
• Urinary problems, predominantly incontinence (OR, 2.25)

Lasting Side Effects

Even up to year 5 after the initial therapy, men with local therapy reported more gastrointestinal and sexual issues, as well as more frequent incontinence, than those with systemic therapy. Only the frequency of pain equalized between the two groups in the second year.

“Our results are consistent with the known side effect profile [of local therapy] in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer receiving surgery or radiation therapy instead of active surveillance,” wrote the authors.

The comparison in advanced prostate cancer, however, is not with active surveillance but with ADT. “As the study confirmed, ADT is associated with various side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. Nevertheless, it was associated with fewer side effects than local therapy in this study. The concept behind local therapy (improving prognosis while avoiding local problems) is challenging to reconcile with these results.

Contradictory Data

The results also contradict findings from other studies. Dr. Kübler pointed to the recently presented PEACE-1 study, where “local complications and issues were reduced through local therapy in high-volume and high-risk patients.”

The study did not consider subsequent interventions, such as how many patients needed transurethral manipulation in the later course of the disease to address local problems. “There are older data showing that a radical prostatectomy can reduce the need for further resections,” Dr. Kübler added.

“I find it difficult to reconcile these data with other data and with my personal experience,” said Dr. Kübler. However, he agreed with the study authors’ conclusion, emphasizing the importance of informing patients about expected side effects of local therapy in the context of potentially marginal improvements in survival.

Different Situation in Germany

“As practitioners, we sometimes underestimate the side effects we subject our patients to. We need to talk to our patients about the prognosis improvement that comes with side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. He added that a similar study in Germany might yield different results. “Dr. Khan and her colleagues examined a very specific patient population: Namely, veterans. This patient clientele often faces many social difficulties, and the treatment structure in US veterans’ care differs significantly from ours.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with advanced prostate cancer undergoing local therapies such as radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy experience significantly more gastrointestinal and sexual issues, along with problems with incontinence, in the following years, than systemically treated patients. These were the findings of a retrospective cohort study in JAMA Network Open.

The standard treatment of advanced prostate cancer is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). “The role of local therapy has been debated for several years. Studies have shown that radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy can improve patient survival under certain conditions,” said Hubert Kübler, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Urology and Pediatric Urology at the University Hospital Würzburg in Germany. “At academic centers, a local therapy is pursued for oligometastatic patients if they are fit enough.”

The hope is to spare patients the side effects of ADT over an extended period and thus improve their quality of life. “But what impact does local therapy itself have on the men’s quality of life, especially considering that the survival advantage gained may be relatively small?” wrote study author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and her colleagues.

Examining Side Effects

This question has not been thoroughly examined yet. “To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies investigating the side effects of local therapy in men with advanced prostate cancer for up to 5 years after treatment,” wrote the authors.

The cohort study included 5500 US veterans who were diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer between January 1999 and December 2013. The tumors were in stage T4 (tumor is fixed or has spread to adjacent structures), with regional lymph node metastases (N1), and partially detectable distant metastases (M1).

The average age was 68.7 years, and 31% received local therapy (eg, radiation therapy, radical prostatectomy, or both), and 69% received systemic therapy (eg, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both).

Types of Local Therapy

Combining radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy “diminishes the meaningfulness of the study results,” according to Dr. Kübler. “The issue should have been analyzed in much finer detail. Studies clearly show, for example, that radiation therapy consistently performs slightly worse than prostatectomy in terms of gastrointestinal complaints.”

In their paper, the researchers reported that the prevalence of side effects was high, regardless of the therapy. Overall, 916 men (75.2%) with initial local therapy and 897 men (67.1%) with initial systemic therapy reported experiencing at least one side effect lasting more than 2 years and up to 5 years.

In the first year after the initial therapy, men who underwent local therapy, compared with those who underwent systemic therapy, experienced more of the following symptoms:

• Gastrointestinal issues (odds ratio [OR], 4.08)
• Pain (OR, 1.57)
• Sexual dysfunction (OR, 2.96)
• Urinary problems, predominantly incontinence (OR, 2.25)

Lasting Side Effects

Even up to year 5 after the initial therapy, men with local therapy reported more gastrointestinal and sexual issues, as well as more frequent incontinence, than those with systemic therapy. Only the frequency of pain equalized between the two groups in the second year.

“Our results are consistent with the known side effect profile [of local therapy] in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer receiving surgery or radiation therapy instead of active surveillance,” wrote the authors.

The comparison in advanced prostate cancer, however, is not with active surveillance but with ADT. “As the study confirmed, ADT is associated with various side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. Nevertheless, it was associated with fewer side effects than local therapy in this study. The concept behind local therapy (improving prognosis while avoiding local problems) is challenging to reconcile with these results.

Contradictory Data

The results also contradict findings from other studies. Dr. Kübler pointed to the recently presented PEACE-1 study, where “local complications and issues were reduced through local therapy in high-volume and high-risk patients.”

The study did not consider subsequent interventions, such as how many patients needed transurethral manipulation in the later course of the disease to address local problems. “There are older data showing that a radical prostatectomy can reduce the need for further resections,” Dr. Kübler added.

“I find it difficult to reconcile these data with other data and with my personal experience,” said Dr. Kübler. However, he agreed with the study authors’ conclusion, emphasizing the importance of informing patients about expected side effects of local therapy in the context of potentially marginal improvements in survival.

Different Situation in Germany

“As practitioners, we sometimes underestimate the side effects we subject our patients to. We need to talk to our patients about the prognosis improvement that comes with side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. He added that a similar study in Germany might yield different results. “Dr. Khan and her colleagues examined a very specific patient population: Namely, veterans. This patient clientele often faces many social difficulties, and the treatment structure in US veterans’ care differs significantly from ours.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with advanced prostate cancer undergoing local therapies such as radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy experience significantly more gastrointestinal and sexual issues, along with problems with incontinence, in the following years, than systemically treated patients. These were the findings of a retrospective cohort study in JAMA Network Open.

The standard treatment of advanced prostate cancer is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). “The role of local therapy has been debated for several years. Studies have shown that radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy can improve patient survival under certain conditions,” said Hubert Kübler, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Urology and Pediatric Urology at the University Hospital Würzburg in Germany. “At academic centers, a local therapy is pursued for oligometastatic patients if they are fit enough.”

The hope is to spare patients the side effects of ADT over an extended period and thus improve their quality of life. “But what impact does local therapy itself have on the men’s quality of life, especially considering that the survival advantage gained may be relatively small?” wrote study author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and her colleagues.

Examining Side Effects

This question has not been thoroughly examined yet. “To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies investigating the side effects of local therapy in men with advanced prostate cancer for up to 5 years after treatment,” wrote the authors.

The cohort study included 5500 US veterans who were diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer between January 1999 and December 2013. The tumors were in stage T4 (tumor is fixed or has spread to adjacent structures), with regional lymph node metastases (N1), and partially detectable distant metastases (M1).

The average age was 68.7 years, and 31% received local therapy (eg, radiation therapy, radical prostatectomy, or both), and 69% received systemic therapy (eg, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both).

Types of Local Therapy

Combining radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy “diminishes the meaningfulness of the study results,” according to Dr. Kübler. “The issue should have been analyzed in much finer detail. Studies clearly show, for example, that radiation therapy consistently performs slightly worse than prostatectomy in terms of gastrointestinal complaints.”

In their paper, the researchers reported that the prevalence of side effects was high, regardless of the therapy. Overall, 916 men (75.2%) with initial local therapy and 897 men (67.1%) with initial systemic therapy reported experiencing at least one side effect lasting more than 2 years and up to 5 years.

In the first year after the initial therapy, men who underwent local therapy, compared with those who underwent systemic therapy, experienced more of the following symptoms:

• Gastrointestinal issues (odds ratio [OR], 4.08)
• Pain (OR, 1.57)
• Sexual dysfunction (OR, 2.96)
• Urinary problems, predominantly incontinence (OR, 2.25)

Lasting Side Effects

Even up to year 5 after the initial therapy, men with local therapy reported more gastrointestinal and sexual issues, as well as more frequent incontinence, than those with systemic therapy. Only the frequency of pain equalized between the two groups in the second year.

“Our results are consistent with the known side effect profile [of local therapy] in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer receiving surgery or radiation therapy instead of active surveillance,” wrote the authors.

The comparison in advanced prostate cancer, however, is not with active surveillance but with ADT. “As the study confirmed, ADT is associated with various side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. Nevertheless, it was associated with fewer side effects than local therapy in this study. The concept behind local therapy (improving prognosis while avoiding local problems) is challenging to reconcile with these results.

Contradictory Data

The results also contradict findings from other studies. Dr. Kübler pointed to the recently presented PEACE-1 study, where “local complications and issues were reduced through local therapy in high-volume and high-risk patients.”

The study did not consider subsequent interventions, such as how many patients needed transurethral manipulation in the later course of the disease to address local problems. “There are older data showing that a radical prostatectomy can reduce the need for further resections,” Dr. Kübler added.

“I find it difficult to reconcile these data with other data and with my personal experience,” said Dr. Kübler. However, he agreed with the study authors’ conclusion, emphasizing the importance of informing patients about expected side effects of local therapy in the context of potentially marginal improvements in survival.

Different Situation in Germany

“As practitioners, we sometimes underestimate the side effects we subject our patients to. We need to talk to our patients about the prognosis improvement that comes with side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. He added that a similar study in Germany might yield different results. “Dr. Khan and her colleagues examined a very specific patient population: Namely, veterans. This patient clientele often faces many social difficulties, and the treatment structure in US veterans’ care differs significantly from ours.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) epidemiology is changing due to a birth cohort effect, also called birth cohort CRC — the observed phenomena of the rising risk for CRC across successive generations of people born in 1960 and later — according to a new narrative review.

Birth cohort CRC is associated with increasing rectal cancer (greater than colon cancer) diagnosis and distant-stage (greater than local-stage) CRC diagnosis, and a rising incidence of early-onset CRC (EOCRC), defined as occurring before age 50.

Recognizing this birth cohort effect could improve the understanding of CRC risk factors, etiology, mechanisms, as well as the public health consequences of rising rates.

“The changing epidemiology means that we need to redouble our efforts at optimizing early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer,” Samir Gupta, MD, the review’s lead author and professor of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, California, told this news organization. Dr. Gupta serves as the co-lead for the cancer control program at Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health.

This requires “being alert for potential red flag signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer, such as iron deficiency anemia and rectal bleeding, that are otherwise unexplained, including for those under age 45,” he said.

We also should make “sure that all people eligible for screening — at age 45 and older — have every opportunity to get screened for colorectal cancer,” Dr. Gupta added.

The review was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Tracking Birth Cohort Trends

CRC rates have increased in the United States among people born since the early 1960s, the authors wrote.

Generation X (individuals born in 1965-1980) experienced an increase in EOCRC, and rates subsequently increased in this generation after age 50. Rates are 1.22-fold higher among people born in 1965-1969 and 1.58-fold higher among those born 1975-1979 than among people born in 1950-1954.

Now rates are also increasing across younger generations, particularly among Millennials (individuals born in 1981-1996) as they enter mid-adulthood. Incidence rates are 1.89-fold higher among people born in 1980-1984 and 2.98-fold higher among those born in 1990-1994 than among individuals born in 1950-1954.

These birth cohort effects are evident globally, despite differences in population age structures, screening programs, and diagnostic strategies around the world. Due to this ongoing trend, physicians anticipate that CRC rates will likely continue to increase as higher-risk birth cohorts become older, the authors wrote.

Notably, four important shifts in CRC incidence are apparent, they noted. First, rates are steadily increasing up to age 50 and plateauing after age 60. Rectal cancers are now predominant through ages 50-59. Rates of distant-stage disease have increased most rapidly among ages 30-49 and more slowly decreased among ages 60-79 compared with those of local-stage disease. In addition, the increasing rates of EOCRC have been observed across all racial and ethnic groups since the early 1990s.

These shifts led to major changes in the types of patients diagnosed with CRC now vs 30 years ago, with a higher proportion being patients younger than 60, as well as Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hispanic patients.

The combination of age-related increases in CRC and birth cohort–related trends will likely lead to substantial increases in the number of people diagnosed with CRC in coming years, especially as Generation X patients move into their 50s and 60s, the authors wrote.
 

Research and Clinical Implications

Birth cohort CRC, including increasing EOCRC incidence, likely is driven by a range of influences, including demographic, lifestyle, early life, environmental, genetic, and somatic factors, as well as interactions among them, the authors noted. Examples within these broad categories include male sex, food insecurity, income inequality, diabetes, alcohol use, less healthy dietary patterns, in utero exposure to certain medications, and microbiome concerns such as early life antibiotic exposure or dysbiosis.

“From a research perspective, this means that we need to think about risk factors and mechanisms that are associated with birth cohorts, not just age at diagnosis,” Dr. Gupta said. “To date, most studies of changing epidemiology have not taken into account birth cohort, such as whether someone is Generation X or later versus pre-Baby Boomer.”

Although additional research is needed, the epidemiology changes have several immediate clinical implications, Dr. Gupta said. For those younger than 45, it is critical to raise awareness about the signs and symptoms of CRC, such as hematochezia, iron deficiency anemia, and unintentional weight loss, as well as family history.

For ages 45 and older, a major focus should be placed on increasing screening participation and follow-up after abnormal results, addressing disparities in screening participation, and optimizing screening quality.

In addition, as CRC incidence continues to increase, health systems and policymakers should ensure every patient has access to guideline-appropriate care and innovative clinical trials, the authors wrote. This access may be particularly important to address the increasing burden of rectal cancer, as treatment approaches rapidly evolve toward more effective therapies, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation prior to surgery, and with less-morbid treatments on the horizon, they added.
 

‘An Interesting Concept’

“Birth cohort CRC is an interesting concept that allows people to think of their CRC risk according to their birth cohort in addition to age,” Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, chief of the Molecular Pathological Epidemiology program at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

Dr. Ogino, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as a member of the cancer immunology and cancer epidemiology programs at the Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center. In studies of EOCRC, he and colleagues have found various biogeographical and pathogenic trends across age groups.

“More research is needed to disentangle the complex etiologies of birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC,” Dr. Ogino said. “Tumor cells and tissues have certain past and ongoing pathological marks, which we can detect to better understand birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC.”

The study was funded by several National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute grants. Dr. Gupta disclosed consulting for Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, Universal Diagnostics, InterVenn Bio, and CellMax. Another author reported consulting for Freenome, Exact Sciences, Medtronic, and Geneoscopy. Dr. Ogino reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Colorectal cancer (CRC) epidemiology is changing due to a birth cohort effect, also called birth cohort CRC — the observed phenomena of the rising risk for CRC across successive generations of people born in 1960 and later — according to a new narrative review.

Birth cohort CRC is associated with increasing rectal cancer (greater than colon cancer) diagnosis and distant-stage (greater than local-stage) CRC diagnosis, and a rising incidence of early-onset CRC (EOCRC), defined as occurring before age 50.

Recognizing this birth cohort effect could improve the understanding of CRC risk factors, etiology, mechanisms, as well as the public health consequences of rising rates.

“The changing epidemiology means that we need to redouble our efforts at optimizing early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer,” Samir Gupta, MD, the review’s lead author and professor of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, California, told this news organization. Dr. Gupta serves as the co-lead for the cancer control program at Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health.

This requires “being alert for potential red flag signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer, such as iron deficiency anemia and rectal bleeding, that are otherwise unexplained, including for those under age 45,” he said.

We also should make “sure that all people eligible for screening — at age 45 and older — have every opportunity to get screened for colorectal cancer,” Dr. Gupta added.

The review was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Tracking Birth Cohort Trends

CRC rates have increased in the United States among people born since the early 1960s, the authors wrote.

Generation X (individuals born in 1965-1980) experienced an increase in EOCRC, and rates subsequently increased in this generation after age 50. Rates are 1.22-fold higher among people born in 1965-1969 and 1.58-fold higher among those born 1975-1979 than among people born in 1950-1954.

Now rates are also increasing across younger generations, particularly among Millennials (individuals born in 1981-1996) as they enter mid-adulthood. Incidence rates are 1.89-fold higher among people born in 1980-1984 and 2.98-fold higher among those born in 1990-1994 than among individuals born in 1950-1954.

These birth cohort effects are evident globally, despite differences in population age structures, screening programs, and diagnostic strategies around the world. Due to this ongoing trend, physicians anticipate that CRC rates will likely continue to increase as higher-risk birth cohorts become older, the authors wrote.

Notably, four important shifts in CRC incidence are apparent, they noted. First, rates are steadily increasing up to age 50 and plateauing after age 60. Rectal cancers are now predominant through ages 50-59. Rates of distant-stage disease have increased most rapidly among ages 30-49 and more slowly decreased among ages 60-79 compared with those of local-stage disease. In addition, the increasing rates of EOCRC have been observed across all racial and ethnic groups since the early 1990s.

These shifts led to major changes in the types of patients diagnosed with CRC now vs 30 years ago, with a higher proportion being patients younger than 60, as well as Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hispanic patients.

The combination of age-related increases in CRC and birth cohort–related trends will likely lead to substantial increases in the number of people diagnosed with CRC in coming years, especially as Generation X patients move into their 50s and 60s, the authors wrote.
 

Research and Clinical Implications

Birth cohort CRC, including increasing EOCRC incidence, likely is driven by a range of influences, including demographic, lifestyle, early life, environmental, genetic, and somatic factors, as well as interactions among them, the authors noted. Examples within these broad categories include male sex, food insecurity, income inequality, diabetes, alcohol use, less healthy dietary patterns, in utero exposure to certain medications, and microbiome concerns such as early life antibiotic exposure or dysbiosis.

“From a research perspective, this means that we need to think about risk factors and mechanisms that are associated with birth cohorts, not just age at diagnosis,” Dr. Gupta said. “To date, most studies of changing epidemiology have not taken into account birth cohort, such as whether someone is Generation X or later versus pre-Baby Boomer.”

Although additional research is needed, the epidemiology changes have several immediate clinical implications, Dr. Gupta said. For those younger than 45, it is critical to raise awareness about the signs and symptoms of CRC, such as hematochezia, iron deficiency anemia, and unintentional weight loss, as well as family history.

For ages 45 and older, a major focus should be placed on increasing screening participation and follow-up after abnormal results, addressing disparities in screening participation, and optimizing screening quality.

In addition, as CRC incidence continues to increase, health systems and policymakers should ensure every patient has access to guideline-appropriate care and innovative clinical trials, the authors wrote. This access may be particularly important to address the increasing burden of rectal cancer, as treatment approaches rapidly evolve toward more effective therapies, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation prior to surgery, and with less-morbid treatments on the horizon, they added.
 

‘An Interesting Concept’

“Birth cohort CRC is an interesting concept that allows people to think of their CRC risk according to their birth cohort in addition to age,” Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, chief of the Molecular Pathological Epidemiology program at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

Dr. Ogino, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as a member of the cancer immunology and cancer epidemiology programs at the Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center. In studies of EOCRC, he and colleagues have found various biogeographical and pathogenic trends across age groups.

“More research is needed to disentangle the complex etiologies of birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC,” Dr. Ogino said. “Tumor cells and tissues have certain past and ongoing pathological marks, which we can detect to better understand birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC.”

The study was funded by several National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute grants. Dr. Gupta disclosed consulting for Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, Universal Diagnostics, InterVenn Bio, and CellMax. Another author reported consulting for Freenome, Exact Sciences, Medtronic, and Geneoscopy. Dr. Ogino reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Colorectal cancer (CRC) epidemiology is changing due to a birth cohort effect, also called birth cohort CRC — the observed phenomena of the rising risk for CRC across successive generations of people born in 1960 and later — according to a new narrative review.

Birth cohort CRC is associated with increasing rectal cancer (greater than colon cancer) diagnosis and distant-stage (greater than local-stage) CRC diagnosis, and a rising incidence of early-onset CRC (EOCRC), defined as occurring before age 50.

Recognizing this birth cohort effect could improve the understanding of CRC risk factors, etiology, mechanisms, as well as the public health consequences of rising rates.

“The changing epidemiology means that we need to redouble our efforts at optimizing early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer,” Samir Gupta, MD, the review’s lead author and professor of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, California, told this news organization. Dr. Gupta serves as the co-lead for the cancer control program at Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health.

This requires “being alert for potential red flag signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer, such as iron deficiency anemia and rectal bleeding, that are otherwise unexplained, including for those under age 45,” he said.

We also should make “sure that all people eligible for screening — at age 45 and older — have every opportunity to get screened for colorectal cancer,” Dr. Gupta added.

The review was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Tracking Birth Cohort Trends

CRC rates have increased in the United States among people born since the early 1960s, the authors wrote.

Generation X (individuals born in 1965-1980) experienced an increase in EOCRC, and rates subsequently increased in this generation after age 50. Rates are 1.22-fold higher among people born in 1965-1969 and 1.58-fold higher among those born 1975-1979 than among people born in 1950-1954.

Now rates are also increasing across younger generations, particularly among Millennials (individuals born in 1981-1996) as they enter mid-adulthood. Incidence rates are 1.89-fold higher among people born in 1980-1984 and 2.98-fold higher among those born in 1990-1994 than among individuals born in 1950-1954.

These birth cohort effects are evident globally, despite differences in population age structures, screening programs, and diagnostic strategies around the world. Due to this ongoing trend, physicians anticipate that CRC rates will likely continue to increase as higher-risk birth cohorts become older, the authors wrote.

Notably, four important shifts in CRC incidence are apparent, they noted. First, rates are steadily increasing up to age 50 and plateauing after age 60. Rectal cancers are now predominant through ages 50-59. Rates of distant-stage disease have increased most rapidly among ages 30-49 and more slowly decreased among ages 60-79 compared with those of local-stage disease. In addition, the increasing rates of EOCRC have been observed across all racial and ethnic groups since the early 1990s.

These shifts led to major changes in the types of patients diagnosed with CRC now vs 30 years ago, with a higher proportion being patients younger than 60, as well as Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hispanic patients.

The combination of age-related increases in CRC and birth cohort–related trends will likely lead to substantial increases in the number of people diagnosed with CRC in coming years, especially as Generation X patients move into their 50s and 60s, the authors wrote.
 

Research and Clinical Implications

Birth cohort CRC, including increasing EOCRC incidence, likely is driven by a range of influences, including demographic, lifestyle, early life, environmental, genetic, and somatic factors, as well as interactions among them, the authors noted. Examples within these broad categories include male sex, food insecurity, income inequality, diabetes, alcohol use, less healthy dietary patterns, in utero exposure to certain medications, and microbiome concerns such as early life antibiotic exposure or dysbiosis.

“From a research perspective, this means that we need to think about risk factors and mechanisms that are associated with birth cohorts, not just age at diagnosis,” Dr. Gupta said. “To date, most studies of changing epidemiology have not taken into account birth cohort, such as whether someone is Generation X or later versus pre-Baby Boomer.”

Although additional research is needed, the epidemiology changes have several immediate clinical implications, Dr. Gupta said. For those younger than 45, it is critical to raise awareness about the signs and symptoms of CRC, such as hematochezia, iron deficiency anemia, and unintentional weight loss, as well as family history.

For ages 45 and older, a major focus should be placed on increasing screening participation and follow-up after abnormal results, addressing disparities in screening participation, and optimizing screening quality.

In addition, as CRC incidence continues to increase, health systems and policymakers should ensure every patient has access to guideline-appropriate care and innovative clinical trials, the authors wrote. This access may be particularly important to address the increasing burden of rectal cancer, as treatment approaches rapidly evolve toward more effective therapies, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation prior to surgery, and with less-morbid treatments on the horizon, they added.
 

‘An Interesting Concept’

“Birth cohort CRC is an interesting concept that allows people to think of their CRC risk according to their birth cohort in addition to age,” Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, chief of the Molecular Pathological Epidemiology program at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

Dr. Ogino, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as a member of the cancer immunology and cancer epidemiology programs at the Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center. In studies of EOCRC, he and colleagues have found various biogeographical and pathogenic trends across age groups.

“More research is needed to disentangle the complex etiologies of birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC,” Dr. Ogino said. “Tumor cells and tissues have certain past and ongoing pathological marks, which we can detect to better understand birth cohort CRC and early-onset CRC.”

The study was funded by several National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute grants. Dr. Gupta disclosed consulting for Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, Universal Diagnostics, InterVenn Bio, and CellMax. Another author reported consulting for Freenome, Exact Sciences, Medtronic, and Geneoscopy. Dr. Ogino reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .