Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.

Top Sections
Best Practices
Government and Regulations
Original Research
fed
Main menu
FP Main Menu
Explore menu
FP Explore Menu
Proclivity ID
18809001
Unpublish
Citation Name
Fed Pract
Negative Keywords
gaming
gambling
compulsive behaviors
ammunition
assault rifle
black jack
Boko Haram
bondage
child abuse
cocaine
Daech
drug paraphernalia
explosion
gun
human trafficking
ISIL
ISIS
Islamic caliphate
Islamic state
mixed martial arts
MMA
molestation
national rifle association
NRA
nsfw
pedophile
pedophilia
poker
porn
pornography
psychedelic drug
recreational drug
sex slave rings
slot machine
terrorism
terrorist
Texas hold 'em
UFC
substance abuse
abuseed
abuseer
abusees
abuseing
abusely
abuses
aeolus
aeolused
aeoluser
aeoluses
aeolusing
aeolusly
aeoluss
ahole
aholeed
aholeer
aholees
aholeing
aholely
aholes
alcohol
alcoholed
alcoholer
alcoholes
alcoholing
alcoholly
alcohols
allman
allmaned
allmaner
allmanes
allmaning
allmanly
allmans
alted
altes
alting
altly
alts
analed
analer
anales
analing
anally
analprobe
analprobeed
analprobeer
analprobees
analprobeing
analprobely
analprobes
anals
anilingus
anilingused
anilinguser
anilinguses
anilingusing
anilingusly
anilinguss
anus
anused
anuser
anuses
anusing
anusly
anuss
areola
areolaed
areolaer
areolaes
areolaing
areolaly
areolas
areole
areoleed
areoleer
areolees
areoleing
areolely
areoles
arian
arianed
arianer
arianes
arianing
arianly
arians
aryan
aryaned
aryaner
aryanes
aryaning
aryanly
aryans
asiaed
asiaer
asiaes
asiaing
asialy
asias
ass
ass hole
ass lick
ass licked
ass licker
ass lickes
ass licking
ass lickly
ass licks
assbang
assbanged
assbangeded
assbangeder
assbangedes
assbangeding
assbangedly
assbangeds
assbanger
assbanges
assbanging
assbangly
assbangs
assbangsed
assbangser
assbangses
assbangsing
assbangsly
assbangss
assed
asser
asses
assesed
asseser
asseses
assesing
assesly
assess
assfuck
assfucked
assfucker
assfuckered
assfuckerer
assfuckeres
assfuckering
assfuckerly
assfuckers
assfuckes
assfucking
assfuckly
assfucks
asshat
asshated
asshater
asshates
asshating
asshatly
asshats
assholeed
assholeer
assholees
assholeing
assholely
assholes
assholesed
assholeser
assholeses
assholesing
assholesly
assholess
assing
assly
assmaster
assmastered
assmasterer
assmasteres
assmastering
assmasterly
assmasters
assmunch
assmunched
assmuncher
assmunches
assmunching
assmunchly
assmunchs
asss
asswipe
asswipeed
asswipeer
asswipees
asswipeing
asswipely
asswipes
asswipesed
asswipeser
asswipeses
asswipesing
asswipesly
asswipess
azz
azzed
azzer
azzes
azzing
azzly
azzs
babeed
babeer
babees
babeing
babely
babes
babesed
babeser
babeses
babesing
babesly
babess
ballsac
ballsaced
ballsacer
ballsaces
ballsacing
ballsack
ballsacked
ballsacker
ballsackes
ballsacking
ballsackly
ballsacks
ballsacly
ballsacs
ballsed
ballser
ballses
ballsing
ballsly
ballss
barf
barfed
barfer
barfes
barfing
barfly
barfs
bastard
bastarded
bastarder
bastardes
bastarding
bastardly
bastards
bastardsed
bastardser
bastardses
bastardsing
bastardsly
bastardss
bawdy
bawdyed
bawdyer
bawdyes
bawdying
bawdyly
bawdys
beaner
beanered
beanerer
beaneres
beanering
beanerly
beaners
beardedclam
beardedclamed
beardedclamer
beardedclames
beardedclaming
beardedclamly
beardedclams
beastiality
beastialityed
beastialityer
beastialityes
beastialitying
beastialityly
beastialitys
beatch
beatched
beatcher
beatches
beatching
beatchly
beatchs
beater
beatered
beaterer
beateres
beatering
beaterly
beaters
beered
beerer
beeres
beering
beerly
beeyotch
beeyotched
beeyotcher
beeyotches
beeyotching
beeyotchly
beeyotchs
beotch
beotched
beotcher
beotches
beotching
beotchly
beotchs
biatch
biatched
biatcher
biatches
biatching
biatchly
biatchs
big tits
big titsed
big titser
big titses
big titsing
big titsly
big titss
bigtits
bigtitsed
bigtitser
bigtitses
bigtitsing
bigtitsly
bigtitss
bimbo
bimboed
bimboer
bimboes
bimboing
bimboly
bimbos
bisexualed
bisexualer
bisexuales
bisexualing
bisexually
bisexuals
bitch
bitched
bitcheded
bitcheder
bitchedes
bitcheding
bitchedly
bitcheds
bitcher
bitches
bitchesed
bitcheser
bitcheses
bitchesing
bitchesly
bitchess
bitching
bitchly
bitchs
bitchy
bitchyed
bitchyer
bitchyes
bitchying
bitchyly
bitchys
bleached
bleacher
bleaches
bleaching
bleachly
bleachs
blow job
blow jobed
blow jober
blow jobes
blow jobing
blow jobly
blow jobs
blowed
blower
blowes
blowing
blowjob
blowjobed
blowjober
blowjobes
blowjobing
blowjobly
blowjobs
blowjobsed
blowjobser
blowjobses
blowjobsing
blowjobsly
blowjobss
blowly
blows
boink
boinked
boinker
boinkes
boinking
boinkly
boinks
bollock
bollocked
bollocker
bollockes
bollocking
bollockly
bollocks
bollocksed
bollockser
bollockses
bollocksing
bollocksly
bollockss
bollok
bolloked
bolloker
bollokes
bolloking
bollokly
bolloks
boner
bonered
bonerer
boneres
bonering
bonerly
boners
bonersed
bonerser
bonerses
bonersing
bonersly
bonerss
bong
bonged
bonger
bonges
bonging
bongly
bongs
boob
boobed
boober
boobes
boobies
boobiesed
boobieser
boobieses
boobiesing
boobiesly
boobiess
boobing
boobly
boobs
boobsed
boobser
boobses
boobsing
boobsly
boobss
booby
boobyed
boobyer
boobyes
boobying
boobyly
boobys
booger
boogered
boogerer
boogeres
boogering
boogerly
boogers
bookie
bookieed
bookieer
bookiees
bookieing
bookiely
bookies
bootee
booteeed
booteeer
booteees
booteeing
booteely
bootees
bootie
bootieed
bootieer
bootiees
bootieing
bootiely
booties
booty
bootyed
bootyer
bootyes
bootying
bootyly
bootys
boozeed
boozeer
boozees
boozeing
boozely
boozer
boozered
boozerer
boozeres
boozering
boozerly
boozers
boozes
boozy
boozyed
boozyer
boozyes
boozying
boozyly
boozys
bosomed
bosomer
bosomes
bosoming
bosomly
bosoms
bosomy
bosomyed
bosomyer
bosomyes
bosomying
bosomyly
bosomys
bugger
buggered
buggerer
buggeres
buggering
buggerly
buggers
bukkake
bukkakeed
bukkakeer
bukkakees
bukkakeing
bukkakely
bukkakes
bull shit
bull shited
bull shiter
bull shites
bull shiting
bull shitly
bull shits
bullshit
bullshited
bullshiter
bullshites
bullshiting
bullshitly
bullshits
bullshitsed
bullshitser
bullshitses
bullshitsing
bullshitsly
bullshitss
bullshitted
bullshitteded
bullshitteder
bullshittedes
bullshitteding
bullshittedly
bullshitteds
bullturds
bullturdsed
bullturdser
bullturdses
bullturdsing
bullturdsly
bullturdss
bung
bunged
bunger
bunges
bunging
bungly
bungs
busty
bustyed
bustyer
bustyes
bustying
bustyly
bustys
butt
butt fuck
butt fucked
butt fucker
butt fuckes
butt fucking
butt fuckly
butt fucks
butted
buttes
buttfuck
buttfucked
buttfucker
buttfuckered
buttfuckerer
buttfuckeres
buttfuckering
buttfuckerly
buttfuckers
buttfuckes
buttfucking
buttfuckly
buttfucks
butting
buttly
buttplug
buttpluged
buttpluger
buttpluges
buttpluging
buttplugly
buttplugs
butts
caca
cacaed
cacaer
cacaes
cacaing
cacaly
cacas
cahone
cahoneed
cahoneer
cahonees
cahoneing
cahonely
cahones
cameltoe
cameltoeed
cameltoeer
cameltoees
cameltoeing
cameltoely
cameltoes
carpetmuncher
carpetmunchered
carpetmuncherer
carpetmuncheres
carpetmunchering
carpetmuncherly
carpetmunchers
cawk
cawked
cawker
cawkes
cawking
cawkly
cawks
chinc
chinced
chincer
chinces
chincing
chincly
chincs
chincsed
chincser
chincses
chincsing
chincsly
chincss
chink
chinked
chinker
chinkes
chinking
chinkly
chinks
chode
chodeed
chodeer
chodees
chodeing
chodely
chodes
chodesed
chodeser
chodeses
chodesing
chodesly
chodess
clit
clited
cliter
clites
cliting
clitly
clitoris
clitorised
clitoriser
clitorises
clitorising
clitorisly
clitoriss
clitorus
clitorused
clitoruser
clitoruses
clitorusing
clitorusly
clitoruss
clits
clitsed
clitser
clitses
clitsing
clitsly
clitss
clitty
clittyed
clittyer
clittyes
clittying
clittyly
clittys
cocain
cocaine
cocained
cocaineed
cocaineer
cocainees
cocaineing
cocainely
cocainer
cocaines
cocaining
cocainly
cocains
cock
cock sucker
cock suckered
cock suckerer
cock suckeres
cock suckering
cock suckerly
cock suckers
cockblock
cockblocked
cockblocker
cockblockes
cockblocking
cockblockly
cockblocks
cocked
cocker
cockes
cockholster
cockholstered
cockholsterer
cockholsteres
cockholstering
cockholsterly
cockholsters
cocking
cockknocker
cockknockered
cockknockerer
cockknockeres
cockknockering
cockknockerly
cockknockers
cockly
cocks
cocksed
cockser
cockses
cocksing
cocksly
cocksmoker
cocksmokered
cocksmokerer
cocksmokeres
cocksmokering
cocksmokerly
cocksmokers
cockss
cocksucker
cocksuckered
cocksuckerer
cocksuckeres
cocksuckering
cocksuckerly
cocksuckers
coital
coitaled
coitaler
coitales
coitaling
coitally
coitals
commie
commieed
commieer
commiees
commieing
commiely
commies
condomed
condomer
condomes
condoming
condomly
condoms
coon
cooned
cooner
coones
cooning
coonly
coons
coonsed
coonser
coonses
coonsing
coonsly
coonss
corksucker
corksuckered
corksuckerer
corksuckeres
corksuckering
corksuckerly
corksuckers
cracked
crackwhore
crackwhoreed
crackwhoreer
crackwhorees
crackwhoreing
crackwhorely
crackwhores
crap
craped
craper
crapes
craping
craply
crappy
crappyed
crappyer
crappyes
crappying
crappyly
crappys
cum
cumed
cumer
cumes
cuming
cumly
cummin
cummined
cumminer
cummines
cumming
cumminged
cumminger
cumminges
cumminging
cummingly
cummings
cummining
cumminly
cummins
cums
cumshot
cumshoted
cumshoter
cumshotes
cumshoting
cumshotly
cumshots
cumshotsed
cumshotser
cumshotses
cumshotsing
cumshotsly
cumshotss
cumslut
cumsluted
cumsluter
cumslutes
cumsluting
cumslutly
cumsluts
cumstain
cumstained
cumstainer
cumstaines
cumstaining
cumstainly
cumstains
cunilingus
cunilingused
cunilinguser
cunilinguses
cunilingusing
cunilingusly
cunilinguss
cunnilingus
cunnilingused
cunnilinguser
cunnilinguses
cunnilingusing
cunnilingusly
cunnilinguss
cunny
cunnyed
cunnyer
cunnyes
cunnying
cunnyly
cunnys
cunt
cunted
cunter
cuntes
cuntface
cuntfaceed
cuntfaceer
cuntfacees
cuntfaceing
cuntfacely
cuntfaces
cunthunter
cunthuntered
cunthunterer
cunthunteres
cunthuntering
cunthunterly
cunthunters
cunting
cuntlick
cuntlicked
cuntlicker
cuntlickered
cuntlickerer
cuntlickeres
cuntlickering
cuntlickerly
cuntlickers
cuntlickes
cuntlicking
cuntlickly
cuntlicks
cuntly
cunts
cuntsed
cuntser
cuntses
cuntsing
cuntsly
cuntss
dago
dagoed
dagoer
dagoes
dagoing
dagoly
dagos
dagosed
dagoser
dagoses
dagosing
dagosly
dagoss
dammit
dammited
dammiter
dammites
dammiting
dammitly
dammits
damn
damned
damneded
damneder
damnedes
damneding
damnedly
damneds
damner
damnes
damning
damnit
damnited
damniter
damnites
damniting
damnitly
damnits
damnly
damns
dick
dickbag
dickbaged
dickbager
dickbages
dickbaging
dickbagly
dickbags
dickdipper
dickdippered
dickdipperer
dickdipperes
dickdippering
dickdipperly
dickdippers
dicked
dicker
dickes
dickface
dickfaceed
dickfaceer
dickfacees
dickfaceing
dickfacely
dickfaces
dickflipper
dickflippered
dickflipperer
dickflipperes
dickflippering
dickflipperly
dickflippers
dickhead
dickheaded
dickheader
dickheades
dickheading
dickheadly
dickheads
dickheadsed
dickheadser
dickheadses
dickheadsing
dickheadsly
dickheadss
dicking
dickish
dickished
dickisher
dickishes
dickishing
dickishly
dickishs
dickly
dickripper
dickrippered
dickripperer
dickripperes
dickrippering
dickripperly
dickrippers
dicks
dicksipper
dicksippered
dicksipperer
dicksipperes
dicksippering
dicksipperly
dicksippers
dickweed
dickweeded
dickweeder
dickweedes
dickweeding
dickweedly
dickweeds
dickwhipper
dickwhippered
dickwhipperer
dickwhipperes
dickwhippering
dickwhipperly
dickwhippers
dickzipper
dickzippered
dickzipperer
dickzipperes
dickzippering
dickzipperly
dickzippers
diddle
diddleed
diddleer
diddlees
diddleing
diddlely
diddles
dike
dikeed
dikeer
dikees
dikeing
dikely
dikes
dildo
dildoed
dildoer
dildoes
dildoing
dildoly
dildos
dildosed
dildoser
dildoses
dildosing
dildosly
dildoss
diligaf
diligafed
diligafer
diligafes
diligafing
diligafly
diligafs
dillweed
dillweeded
dillweeder
dillweedes
dillweeding
dillweedly
dillweeds
dimwit
dimwited
dimwiter
dimwites
dimwiting
dimwitly
dimwits
dingle
dingleed
dingleer
dinglees
dingleing
dinglely
dingles
dipship
dipshiped
dipshiper
dipshipes
dipshiping
dipshiply
dipships
dizzyed
dizzyer
dizzyes
dizzying
dizzyly
dizzys
doggiestyleed
doggiestyleer
doggiestylees
doggiestyleing
doggiestylely
doggiestyles
doggystyleed
doggystyleer
doggystylees
doggystyleing
doggystylely
doggystyles
dong
donged
donger
donges
donging
dongly
dongs
doofus
doofused
doofuser
doofuses
doofusing
doofusly
doofuss
doosh
dooshed
doosher
dooshes
dooshing
dooshly
dooshs
dopeyed
dopeyer
dopeyes
dopeying
dopeyly
dopeys
douchebag
douchebaged
douchebager
douchebages
douchebaging
douchebagly
douchebags
douchebagsed
douchebagser
douchebagses
douchebagsing
douchebagsly
douchebagss
doucheed
doucheer
douchees
doucheing
douchely
douches
douchey
doucheyed
doucheyer
doucheyes
doucheying
doucheyly
doucheys
drunk
drunked
drunker
drunkes
drunking
drunkly
drunks
dumass
dumassed
dumasser
dumasses
dumassing
dumassly
dumasss
dumbass
dumbassed
dumbasser
dumbasses
dumbassesed
dumbasseser
dumbasseses
dumbassesing
dumbassesly
dumbassess
dumbassing
dumbassly
dumbasss
dummy
dummyed
dummyer
dummyes
dummying
dummyly
dummys
dyke
dykeed
dykeer
dykees
dykeing
dykely
dykes
dykesed
dykeser
dykeses
dykesing
dykesly
dykess
erotic
eroticed
eroticer
erotices
eroticing
eroticly
erotics
extacy
extacyed
extacyer
extacyes
extacying
extacyly
extacys
extasy
extasyed
extasyer
extasyes
extasying
extasyly
extasys
fack
facked
facker
fackes
facking
fackly
facks
fag
faged
fager
fages
fagg
fagged
faggeded
faggeder
faggedes
faggeding
faggedly
faggeds
fagger
fagges
fagging
faggit
faggited
faggiter
faggites
faggiting
faggitly
faggits
faggly
faggot
faggoted
faggoter
faggotes
faggoting
faggotly
faggots
faggs
faging
fagly
fagot
fagoted
fagoter
fagotes
fagoting
fagotly
fagots
fags
fagsed
fagser
fagses
fagsing
fagsly
fagss
faig
faiged
faiger
faiges
faiging
faigly
faigs
faigt
faigted
faigter
faigtes
faigting
faigtly
faigts
fannybandit
fannybandited
fannybanditer
fannybandites
fannybanditing
fannybanditly
fannybandits
farted
farter
fartes
farting
fartknocker
fartknockered
fartknockerer
fartknockeres
fartknockering
fartknockerly
fartknockers
fartly
farts
felch
felched
felcher
felchered
felcherer
felcheres
felchering
felcherly
felchers
felches
felching
felchinged
felchinger
felchinges
felchinging
felchingly
felchings
felchly
felchs
fellate
fellateed
fellateer
fellatees
fellateing
fellately
fellates
fellatio
fellatioed
fellatioer
fellatioes
fellatioing
fellatioly
fellatios
feltch
feltched
feltcher
feltchered
feltcherer
feltcheres
feltchering
feltcherly
feltchers
feltches
feltching
feltchly
feltchs
feom
feomed
feomer
feomes
feoming
feomly
feoms
fisted
fisteded
fisteder
fistedes
fisteding
fistedly
fisteds
fisting
fistinged
fistinger
fistinges
fistinging
fistingly
fistings
fisty
fistyed
fistyer
fistyes
fistying
fistyly
fistys
floozy
floozyed
floozyer
floozyes
floozying
floozyly
floozys
foad
foaded
foader
foades
foading
foadly
foads
fondleed
fondleer
fondlees
fondleing
fondlely
fondles
foobar
foobared
foobarer
foobares
foobaring
foobarly
foobars
freex
freexed
freexer
freexes
freexing
freexly
freexs
frigg
frigga
friggaed
friggaer
friggaes
friggaing
friggaly
friggas
frigged
frigger
frigges
frigging
friggly
friggs
fubar
fubared
fubarer
fubares
fubaring
fubarly
fubars
fuck
fuckass
fuckassed
fuckasser
fuckasses
fuckassing
fuckassly
fuckasss
fucked
fuckeded
fuckeder
fuckedes
fuckeding
fuckedly
fuckeds
fucker
fuckered
fuckerer
fuckeres
fuckering
fuckerly
fuckers
fuckes
fuckface
fuckfaceed
fuckfaceer
fuckfacees
fuckfaceing
fuckfacely
fuckfaces
fuckin
fuckined
fuckiner
fuckines
fucking
fuckinged
fuckinger
fuckinges
fuckinging
fuckingly
fuckings
fuckining
fuckinly
fuckins
fuckly
fucknugget
fucknuggeted
fucknuggeter
fucknuggetes
fucknuggeting
fucknuggetly
fucknuggets
fucknut
fucknuted
fucknuter
fucknutes
fucknuting
fucknutly
fucknuts
fuckoff
fuckoffed
fuckoffer
fuckoffes
fuckoffing
fuckoffly
fuckoffs
fucks
fucksed
fuckser
fuckses
fucksing
fucksly
fuckss
fucktard
fucktarded
fucktarder
fucktardes
fucktarding
fucktardly
fucktards
fuckup
fuckuped
fuckuper
fuckupes
fuckuping
fuckuply
fuckups
fuckwad
fuckwaded
fuckwader
fuckwades
fuckwading
fuckwadly
fuckwads
fuckwit
fuckwited
fuckwiter
fuckwites
fuckwiting
fuckwitly
fuckwits
fudgepacker
fudgepackered
fudgepackerer
fudgepackeres
fudgepackering
fudgepackerly
fudgepackers
fuk
fuked
fuker
fukes
fuking
fukly
fuks
fvck
fvcked
fvcker
fvckes
fvcking
fvckly
fvcks
fxck
fxcked
fxcker
fxckes
fxcking
fxckly
fxcks
gae
gaeed
gaeer
gaees
gaeing
gaely
gaes
gai
gaied
gaier
gaies
gaiing
gaily
gais
ganja
ganjaed
ganjaer
ganjaes
ganjaing
ganjaly
ganjas
gayed
gayer
gayes
gaying
gayly
gays
gaysed
gayser
gayses
gaysing
gaysly
gayss
gey
geyed
geyer
geyes
geying
geyly
geys
gfc
gfced
gfcer
gfces
gfcing
gfcly
gfcs
gfy
gfyed
gfyer
gfyes
gfying
gfyly
gfys
ghay
ghayed
ghayer
ghayes
ghaying
ghayly
ghays
ghey
gheyed
gheyer
gheyes
gheying
gheyly
gheys
gigolo
gigoloed
gigoloer
gigoloes
gigoloing
gigololy
gigolos
goatse
goatseed
goatseer
goatsees
goatseing
goatsely
goatses
godamn
godamned
godamner
godamnes
godamning
godamnit
godamnited
godamniter
godamnites
godamniting
godamnitly
godamnits
godamnly
godamns
goddam
goddamed
goddamer
goddames
goddaming
goddamly
goddammit
goddammited
goddammiter
goddammites
goddammiting
goddammitly
goddammits
goddamn
goddamned
goddamner
goddamnes
goddamning
goddamnly
goddamns
goddams
goldenshower
goldenshowered
goldenshowerer
goldenshoweres
goldenshowering
goldenshowerly
goldenshowers
gonad
gonaded
gonader
gonades
gonading
gonadly
gonads
gonadsed
gonadser
gonadses
gonadsing
gonadsly
gonadss
gook
gooked
gooker
gookes
gooking
gookly
gooks
gooksed
gookser
gookses
gooksing
gooksly
gookss
gringo
gringoed
gringoer
gringoes
gringoing
gringoly
gringos
gspot
gspoted
gspoter
gspotes
gspoting
gspotly
gspots
gtfo
gtfoed
gtfoer
gtfoes
gtfoing
gtfoly
gtfos
guido
guidoed
guidoer
guidoes
guidoing
guidoly
guidos
handjob
handjobed
handjober
handjobes
handjobing
handjobly
handjobs
hard on
hard oned
hard oner
hard ones
hard oning
hard only
hard ons
hardknight
hardknighted
hardknighter
hardknightes
hardknighting
hardknightly
hardknights
hebe
hebeed
hebeer
hebees
hebeing
hebely
hebes
heeb
heebed
heeber
heebes
heebing
heebly
heebs
hell
helled
heller
helles
helling
hellly
hells
hemp
hemped
hemper
hempes
hemping
hemply
hemps
heroined
heroiner
heroines
heroining
heroinly
heroins
herp
herped
herper
herpes
herpesed
herpeser
herpeses
herpesing
herpesly
herpess
herping
herply
herps
herpy
herpyed
herpyer
herpyes
herpying
herpyly
herpys
hitler
hitlered
hitlerer
hitleres
hitlering
hitlerly
hitlers
hived
hiver
hives
hiving
hivly
hivs
hobag
hobaged
hobager
hobages
hobaging
hobagly
hobags
homey
homeyed
homeyer
homeyes
homeying
homeyly
homeys
homo
homoed
homoer
homoes
homoey
homoeyed
homoeyer
homoeyes
homoeying
homoeyly
homoeys
homoing
homoly
homos
honky
honkyed
honkyer
honkyes
honkying
honkyly
honkys
hooch
hooched
hoocher
hooches
hooching
hoochly
hoochs
hookah
hookahed
hookaher
hookahes
hookahing
hookahly
hookahs
hooker
hookered
hookerer
hookeres
hookering
hookerly
hookers
hoor
hoored
hoorer
hoores
hooring
hoorly
hoors
hootch
hootched
hootcher
hootches
hootching
hootchly
hootchs
hooter
hootered
hooterer
hooteres
hootering
hooterly
hooters
hootersed
hooterser
hooterses
hootersing
hootersly
hooterss
horny
hornyed
hornyer
hornyes
hornying
hornyly
hornys
houstoned
houstoner
houstones
houstoning
houstonly
houstons
hump
humped
humpeded
humpeder
humpedes
humpeding
humpedly
humpeds
humper
humpes
humping
humpinged
humpinger
humpinges
humpinging
humpingly
humpings
humply
humps
husbanded
husbander
husbandes
husbanding
husbandly
husbands
hussy
hussyed
hussyer
hussyes
hussying
hussyly
hussys
hymened
hymener
hymenes
hymening
hymenly
hymens
inbred
inbreded
inbreder
inbredes
inbreding
inbredly
inbreds
incest
incested
incester
incestes
incesting
incestly
incests
injun
injuned
injuner
injunes
injuning
injunly
injuns
jackass
jackassed
jackasser
jackasses
jackassing
jackassly
jackasss
jackhole
jackholeed
jackholeer
jackholees
jackholeing
jackholely
jackholes
jackoff
jackoffed
jackoffer
jackoffes
jackoffing
jackoffly
jackoffs
jap
japed
japer
japes
japing
japly
japs
japsed
japser
japses
japsing
japsly
japss
jerkoff
jerkoffed
jerkoffer
jerkoffes
jerkoffing
jerkoffly
jerkoffs
jerks
jism
jismed
jismer
jismes
jisming
jismly
jisms
jiz
jized
jizer
jizes
jizing
jizly
jizm
jizmed
jizmer
jizmes
jizming
jizmly
jizms
jizs
jizz
jizzed
jizzeded
jizzeder
jizzedes
jizzeding
jizzedly
jizzeds
jizzer
jizzes
jizzing
jizzly
jizzs
junkie
junkieed
junkieer
junkiees
junkieing
junkiely
junkies
junky
junkyed
junkyer
junkyes
junkying
junkyly
junkys
kike
kikeed
kikeer
kikees
kikeing
kikely
kikes
kikesed
kikeser
kikeses
kikesing
kikesly
kikess
killed
killer
killes
killing
killly
kills
kinky
kinkyed
kinkyer
kinkyes
kinkying
kinkyly
kinkys
kkk
kkked
kkker
kkkes
kkking
kkkly
kkks
klan
klaned
klaner
klanes
klaning
klanly
klans
knobend
knobended
knobender
knobendes
knobending
knobendly
knobends
kooch
kooched
koocher
kooches
koochesed
koocheser
koocheses
koochesing
koochesly
koochess
kooching
koochly
koochs
kootch
kootched
kootcher
kootches
kootching
kootchly
kootchs
kraut
krauted
krauter
krautes
krauting
krautly
krauts
kyke
kykeed
kykeer
kykees
kykeing
kykely
kykes
lech
leched
lecher
leches
leching
lechly
lechs
leper
lepered
leperer
leperes
lepering
leperly
lepers
lesbiansed
lesbianser
lesbianses
lesbiansing
lesbiansly
lesbianss
lesbo
lesboed
lesboer
lesboes
lesboing
lesboly
lesbos
lesbosed
lesboser
lesboses
lesbosing
lesbosly
lesboss
lez
lezbianed
lezbianer
lezbianes
lezbianing
lezbianly
lezbians
lezbiansed
lezbianser
lezbianses
lezbiansing
lezbiansly
lezbianss
lezbo
lezboed
lezboer
lezboes
lezboing
lezboly
lezbos
lezbosed
lezboser
lezboses
lezbosing
lezbosly
lezboss
lezed
lezer
lezes
lezing
lezly
lezs
lezzie
lezzieed
lezzieer
lezziees
lezzieing
lezziely
lezzies
lezziesed
lezzieser
lezzieses
lezziesing
lezziesly
lezziess
lezzy
lezzyed
lezzyer
lezzyes
lezzying
lezzyly
lezzys
lmaoed
lmaoer
lmaoes
lmaoing
lmaoly
lmaos
lmfao
lmfaoed
lmfaoer
lmfaoes
lmfaoing
lmfaoly
lmfaos
loined
loiner
loines
loining
loinly
loins
loinsed
loinser
loinses
loinsing
loinsly
loinss
lubeed
lubeer
lubees
lubeing
lubely
lubes
lusty
lustyed
lustyer
lustyes
lustying
lustyly
lustys
massa
massaed
massaer
massaes
massaing
massaly
massas
masterbate
masterbateed
masterbateer
masterbatees
masterbateing
masterbately
masterbates
masterbating
masterbatinged
masterbatinger
masterbatinges
masterbatinging
masterbatingly
masterbatings
masterbation
masterbationed
masterbationer
masterbationes
masterbationing
masterbationly
masterbations
masturbate
masturbateed
masturbateer
masturbatees
masturbateing
masturbately
masturbates
masturbating
masturbatinged
masturbatinger
masturbatinges
masturbatinging
masturbatingly
masturbatings
masturbation
masturbationed
masturbationer
masturbationes
masturbationing
masturbationly
masturbations
methed
mether
methes
mething
methly
meths
militaryed
militaryer
militaryes
militarying
militaryly
militarys
mofo
mofoed
mofoer
mofoes
mofoing
mofoly
mofos
molest
molested
molester
molestes
molesting
molestly
molests
moolie
moolieed
moolieer
mooliees
moolieing
mooliely
moolies
moron
moroned
moroner
morones
moroning
moronly
morons
motherfucka
motherfuckaed
motherfuckaer
motherfuckaes
motherfuckaing
motherfuckaly
motherfuckas
motherfucker
motherfuckered
motherfuckerer
motherfuckeres
motherfuckering
motherfuckerly
motherfuckers
motherfucking
motherfuckinged
motherfuckinger
motherfuckinges
motherfuckinging
motherfuckingly
motherfuckings
mtherfucker
mtherfuckered
mtherfuckerer
mtherfuckeres
mtherfuckering
mtherfuckerly
mtherfuckers
mthrfucker
mthrfuckered
mthrfuckerer
mthrfuckeres
mthrfuckering
mthrfuckerly
mthrfuckers
mthrfucking
mthrfuckinged
mthrfuckinger
mthrfuckinges
mthrfuckinging
mthrfuckingly
mthrfuckings
muff
muffdiver
muffdivered
muffdiverer
muffdiveres
muffdivering
muffdiverly
muffdivers
muffed
muffer
muffes
muffing
muffly
muffs
murdered
murderer
murderes
murdering
murderly
murders
muthafuckaz
muthafuckazed
muthafuckazer
muthafuckazes
muthafuckazing
muthafuckazly
muthafuckazs
muthafucker
muthafuckered
muthafuckerer
muthafuckeres
muthafuckering
muthafuckerly
muthafuckers
mutherfucker
mutherfuckered
mutherfuckerer
mutherfuckeres
mutherfuckering
mutherfuckerly
mutherfuckers
mutherfucking
mutherfuckinged
mutherfuckinger
mutherfuckinges
mutherfuckinging
mutherfuckingly
mutherfuckings
muthrfucking
muthrfuckinged
muthrfuckinger
muthrfuckinges
muthrfuckinging
muthrfuckingly
muthrfuckings
nad
naded
nader
nades
nading
nadly
nads
nadsed
nadser
nadses
nadsing
nadsly
nadss
nakeded
nakeder
nakedes
nakeding
nakedly
nakeds
napalm
napalmed
napalmer
napalmes
napalming
napalmly
napalms
nappy
nappyed
nappyer
nappyes
nappying
nappyly
nappys
nazi
nazied
nazier
nazies
naziing
nazily
nazis
nazism
nazismed
nazismer
nazismes
nazisming
nazismly
nazisms
negro
negroed
negroer
negroes
negroing
negroly
negros
nigga
niggaed
niggaer
niggaes
niggah
niggahed
niggaher
niggahes
niggahing
niggahly
niggahs
niggaing
niggaly
niggas
niggased
niggaser
niggases
niggasing
niggasly
niggass
niggaz
niggazed
niggazer
niggazes
niggazing
niggazly
niggazs
nigger
niggered
niggerer
niggeres
niggering
niggerly
niggers
niggersed
niggerser
niggerses
niggersing
niggersly
niggerss
niggle
niggleed
niggleer
nigglees
niggleing
nigglely
niggles
niglet
nigleted
nigleter
nigletes
nigleting
nigletly
niglets
nimrod
nimroded
nimroder
nimrodes
nimroding
nimrodly
nimrods
ninny
ninnyed
ninnyer
ninnyes
ninnying
ninnyly
ninnys
nooky
nookyed
nookyer
nookyes
nookying
nookyly
nookys
nuccitelli
nuccitellied
nuccitellier
nuccitellies
nuccitelliing
nuccitellily
nuccitellis
nympho
nymphoed
nymphoer
nymphoes
nymphoing
nympholy
nymphos
opium
opiumed
opiumer
opiumes
opiuming
opiumly
opiums
orgies
orgiesed
orgieser
orgieses
orgiesing
orgiesly
orgiess
orgy
orgyed
orgyer
orgyes
orgying
orgyly
orgys
paddy
paddyed
paddyer
paddyes
paddying
paddyly
paddys
paki
pakied
pakier
pakies
pakiing
pakily
pakis
pantie
pantieed
pantieer
pantiees
pantieing
pantiely
panties
pantiesed
pantieser
pantieses
pantiesing
pantiesly
pantiess
panty
pantyed
pantyer
pantyes
pantying
pantyly
pantys
pastie
pastieed
pastieer
pastiees
pastieing
pastiely
pasties
pasty
pastyed
pastyer
pastyes
pastying
pastyly
pastys
pecker
peckered
peckerer
peckeres
peckering
peckerly
peckers
pedo
pedoed
pedoer
pedoes
pedoing
pedoly
pedophile
pedophileed
pedophileer
pedophilees
pedophileing
pedophilely
pedophiles
pedophilia
pedophiliac
pedophiliaced
pedophiliacer
pedophiliaces
pedophiliacing
pedophiliacly
pedophiliacs
pedophiliaed
pedophiliaer
pedophiliaes
pedophiliaing
pedophilialy
pedophilias
pedos
penial
penialed
penialer
peniales
penialing
penially
penials
penile
penileed
penileer
penilees
penileing
penilely
peniles
penis
penised
peniser
penises
penising
penisly
peniss
perversion
perversioned
perversioner
perversiones
perversioning
perversionly
perversions
peyote
peyoteed
peyoteer
peyotees
peyoteing
peyotely
peyotes
phuck
phucked
phucker
phuckes
phucking
phuckly
phucks
pillowbiter
pillowbitered
pillowbiterer
pillowbiteres
pillowbitering
pillowbiterly
pillowbiters
pimp
pimped
pimper
pimpes
pimping
pimply
pimps
pinko
pinkoed
pinkoer
pinkoes
pinkoing
pinkoly
pinkos
pissed
pisseded
pisseder
pissedes
pisseding
pissedly
pisseds
pisser
pisses
pissing
pissly
pissoff
pissoffed
pissoffer
pissoffes
pissoffing
pissoffly
pissoffs
pisss
polack
polacked
polacker
polackes
polacking
polackly
polacks
pollock
pollocked
pollocker
pollockes
pollocking
pollockly
pollocks
poon
pooned
pooner
poones
pooning
poonly
poons
poontang
poontanged
poontanger
poontanges
poontanging
poontangly
poontangs
porn
porned
porner
pornes
porning
pornly
porno
pornoed
pornoer
pornoes
pornography
pornographyed
pornographyer
pornographyes
pornographying
pornographyly
pornographys
pornoing
pornoly
pornos
porns
prick
pricked
pricker
prickes
pricking
prickly
pricks
prig
priged
priger
priges
priging
prigly
prigs
prostitute
prostituteed
prostituteer
prostitutees
prostituteing
prostitutely
prostitutes
prude
prudeed
prudeer
prudees
prudeing
prudely
prudes
punkass
punkassed
punkasser
punkasses
punkassing
punkassly
punkasss
punky
punkyed
punkyer
punkyes
punkying
punkyly
punkys
puss
pussed
pusser
pusses
pussies
pussiesed
pussieser
pussieses
pussiesing
pussiesly
pussiess
pussing
pussly
pusss
pussy
pussyed
pussyer
pussyes
pussying
pussyly
pussypounder
pussypoundered
pussypounderer
pussypounderes
pussypoundering
pussypounderly
pussypounders
pussys
puto
putoed
putoer
putoes
putoing
putoly
putos
queaf
queafed
queafer
queafes
queafing
queafly
queafs
queef
queefed
queefer
queefes
queefing
queefly
queefs
queer
queered
queerer
queeres
queering
queerly
queero
queeroed
queeroer
queeroes
queeroing
queeroly
queeros
queers
queersed
queerser
queerses
queersing
queersly
queerss
quicky
quickyed
quickyer
quickyes
quickying
quickyly
quickys
quim
quimed
quimer
quimes
quiming
quimly
quims
racy
racyed
racyer
racyes
racying
racyly
racys
rape
raped
rapeded
rapeder
rapedes
rapeding
rapedly
rapeds
rapeed
rapeer
rapees
rapeing
rapely
raper
rapered
raperer
raperes
rapering
raperly
rapers
rapes
rapist
rapisted
rapister
rapistes
rapisting
rapistly
rapists
raunch
raunched
rauncher
raunches
raunching
raunchly
raunchs
rectus
rectused
rectuser
rectuses
rectusing
rectusly
rectuss
reefer
reefered
reeferer
reeferes
reefering
reeferly
reefers
reetard
reetarded
reetarder
reetardes
reetarding
reetardly
reetards
reich
reiched
reicher
reiches
reiching
reichly
reichs
retard
retarded
retardeded
retardeder
retardedes
retardeding
retardedly
retardeds
retarder
retardes
retarding
retardly
retards
rimjob
rimjobed
rimjober
rimjobes
rimjobing
rimjobly
rimjobs
ritard
ritarded
ritarder
ritardes
ritarding
ritardly
ritards
rtard
rtarded
rtarder
rtardes
rtarding
rtardly
rtards
rum
rumed
rumer
rumes
ruming
rumly
rump
rumped
rumper
rumpes
rumping
rumply
rumprammer
rumprammered
rumprammerer
rumprammeres
rumprammering
rumprammerly
rumprammers
rumps
rums
ruski
ruskied
ruskier
ruskies
ruskiing
ruskily
ruskis
sadism
sadismed
sadismer
sadismes
sadisming
sadismly
sadisms
sadist
sadisted
sadister
sadistes
sadisting
sadistly
sadists
scag
scaged
scager
scages
scaging
scagly
scags
scantily
scantilyed
scantilyer
scantilyes
scantilying
scantilyly
scantilys
schlong
schlonged
schlonger
schlonges
schlonging
schlongly
schlongs
scrog
scroged
scroger
scroges
scroging
scrogly
scrogs
scrot
scrote
scroted
scroteed
scroteer
scrotees
scroteing
scrotely
scroter
scrotes
scroting
scrotly
scrots
scrotum
scrotumed
scrotumer
scrotumes
scrotuming
scrotumly
scrotums
scrud
scruded
scruder
scrudes
scruding
scrudly
scruds
scum
scumed
scumer
scumes
scuming
scumly
scums
seaman
seamaned
seamaner
seamanes
seamaning
seamanly
seamans
seamen
seamened
seamener
seamenes
seamening
seamenly
seamens
seduceed
seduceer
seducees
seduceing
seducely
seduces
semen
semened
semener
semenes
semening
semenly
semens
shamedame
shamedameed
shamedameer
shamedamees
shamedameing
shamedamely
shamedames
shit
shite
shiteater
shiteatered
shiteaterer
shiteateres
shiteatering
shiteaterly
shiteaters
shited
shiteed
shiteer
shitees
shiteing
shitely
shiter
shites
shitface
shitfaceed
shitfaceer
shitfacees
shitfaceing
shitfacely
shitfaces
shithead
shitheaded
shitheader
shitheades
shitheading
shitheadly
shitheads
shithole
shitholeed
shitholeer
shitholees
shitholeing
shitholely
shitholes
shithouse
shithouseed
shithouseer
shithousees
shithouseing
shithousely
shithouses
shiting
shitly
shits
shitsed
shitser
shitses
shitsing
shitsly
shitss
shitt
shitted
shitteded
shitteder
shittedes
shitteding
shittedly
shitteds
shitter
shittered
shitterer
shitteres
shittering
shitterly
shitters
shittes
shitting
shittly
shitts
shitty
shittyed
shittyer
shittyes
shittying
shittyly
shittys
shiz
shized
shizer
shizes
shizing
shizly
shizs
shooted
shooter
shootes
shooting
shootly
shoots
sissy
sissyed
sissyer
sissyes
sissying
sissyly
sissys
skag
skaged
skager
skages
skaging
skagly
skags
skank
skanked
skanker
skankes
skanking
skankly
skanks
slave
slaveed
slaveer
slavees
slaveing
slavely
slaves
sleaze
sleazeed
sleazeer
sleazees
sleazeing
sleazely
sleazes
sleazy
sleazyed
sleazyer
sleazyes
sleazying
sleazyly
sleazys
slut
slutdumper
slutdumpered
slutdumperer
slutdumperes
slutdumpering
slutdumperly
slutdumpers
sluted
sluter
slutes
sluting
slutkiss
slutkissed
slutkisser
slutkisses
slutkissing
slutkissly
slutkisss
slutly
sluts
slutsed
slutser
slutses
slutsing
slutsly
slutss
smegma
smegmaed
smegmaer
smegmaes
smegmaing
smegmaly
smegmas
smut
smuted
smuter
smutes
smuting
smutly
smuts
smutty
smuttyed
smuttyer
smuttyes
smuttying
smuttyly
smuttys
snatch
snatched
snatcher
snatches
snatching
snatchly
snatchs
sniper
snipered
sniperer
sniperes
snipering
sniperly
snipers
snort
snorted
snorter
snortes
snorting
snortly
snorts
snuff
snuffed
snuffer
snuffes
snuffing
snuffly
snuffs
sodom
sodomed
sodomer
sodomes
sodoming
sodomly
sodoms
spic
spiced
spicer
spices
spicing
spick
spicked
spicker
spickes
spicking
spickly
spicks
spicly
spics
spik
spoof
spoofed
spoofer
spoofes
spoofing
spoofly
spoofs
spooge
spoogeed
spoogeer
spoogees
spoogeing
spoogely
spooges
spunk
spunked
spunker
spunkes
spunking
spunkly
spunks
steamyed
steamyer
steamyes
steamying
steamyly
steamys
stfu
stfued
stfuer
stfues
stfuing
stfuly
stfus
stiffy
stiffyed
stiffyer
stiffyes
stiffying
stiffyly
stiffys
stoneded
stoneder
stonedes
stoneding
stonedly
stoneds
stupided
stupider
stupides
stupiding
stupidly
stupids
suckeded
suckeder
suckedes
suckeding
suckedly
suckeds
sucker
suckes
sucking
suckinged
suckinger
suckinges
suckinging
suckingly
suckings
suckly
sucks
sumofabiatch
sumofabiatched
sumofabiatcher
sumofabiatches
sumofabiatching
sumofabiatchly
sumofabiatchs
tard
tarded
tarder
tardes
tarding
tardly
tards
tawdry
tawdryed
tawdryer
tawdryes
tawdrying
tawdryly
tawdrys
teabagging
teabagginged
teabagginger
teabagginges
teabagginging
teabaggingly
teabaggings
terd
terded
terder
terdes
terding
terdly
terds
teste
testee
testeed
testeeed
testeeer
testeees
testeeing
testeely
testeer
testees
testeing
testely
testes
testesed
testeser
testeses
testesing
testesly
testess
testicle
testicleed
testicleer
testiclees
testicleing
testiclely
testicles
testis
testised
testiser
testises
testising
testisly
testiss
thrusted
thruster
thrustes
thrusting
thrustly
thrusts
thug
thuged
thuger
thuges
thuging
thugly
thugs
tinkle
tinkleed
tinkleer
tinklees
tinkleing
tinklely
tinkles
tit
tited
titer
tites
titfuck
titfucked
titfucker
titfuckes
titfucking
titfuckly
titfucks
titi
titied
titier
tities
titiing
titily
titing
titis
titly
tits
titsed
titser
titses
titsing
titsly
titss
tittiefucker
tittiefuckered
tittiefuckerer
tittiefuckeres
tittiefuckering
tittiefuckerly
tittiefuckers
titties
tittiesed
tittieser
tittieses
tittiesing
tittiesly
tittiess
titty
tittyed
tittyer
tittyes
tittyfuck
tittyfucked
tittyfucker
tittyfuckered
tittyfuckerer
tittyfuckeres
tittyfuckering
tittyfuckerly
tittyfuckers
tittyfuckes
tittyfucking
tittyfuckly
tittyfucks
tittying
tittyly
tittys
toke
tokeed
tokeer
tokees
tokeing
tokely
tokes
toots
tootsed
tootser
tootses
tootsing
tootsly
tootss
tramp
tramped
tramper
trampes
tramping
tramply
tramps
transsexualed
transsexualer
transsexuales
transsexualing
transsexually
transsexuals
trashy
trashyed
trashyer
trashyes
trashying
trashyly
trashys
tubgirl
tubgirled
tubgirler
tubgirles
tubgirling
tubgirlly
tubgirls
turd
turded
turder
turdes
turding
turdly
turds
tush
tushed
tusher
tushes
tushing
tushly
tushs
twat
twated
twater
twates
twating
twatly
twats
twatsed
twatser
twatses
twatsing
twatsly
twatss
undies
undiesed
undieser
undieses
undiesing
undiesly
undiess
unweded
unweder
unwedes
unweding
unwedly
unweds
uzi
uzied
uzier
uzies
uziing
uzily
uzis
vag
vaged
vager
vages
vaging
vagly
vags
valium
valiumed
valiumer
valiumes
valiuming
valiumly
valiums
venous
virgined
virginer
virgines
virgining
virginly
virgins
vixen
vixened
vixener
vixenes
vixening
vixenly
vixens
vodkaed
vodkaer
vodkaes
vodkaing
vodkaly
vodkas
voyeur
voyeured
voyeurer
voyeures
voyeuring
voyeurly
voyeurs
vulgar
vulgared
vulgarer
vulgares
vulgaring
vulgarly
vulgars
wang
wanged
wanger
wanges
wanging
wangly
wangs
wank
wanked
wanker
wankered
wankerer
wankeres
wankering
wankerly
wankers
wankes
wanking
wankly
wanks
wazoo
wazooed
wazooer
wazooes
wazooing
wazooly
wazoos
wedgie
wedgieed
wedgieer
wedgiees
wedgieing
wedgiely
wedgies
weeded
weeder
weedes
weeding
weedly
weeds
weenie
weenieed
weenieer
weeniees
weenieing
weeniely
weenies
weewee
weeweeed
weeweeer
weeweees
weeweeing
weeweely
weewees
weiner
weinered
weinerer
weineres
weinering
weinerly
weiners
weirdo
weirdoed
weirdoer
weirdoes
weirdoing
weirdoly
weirdos
wench
wenched
wencher
wenches
wenching
wenchly
wenchs
wetback
wetbacked
wetbacker
wetbackes
wetbacking
wetbackly
wetbacks
whitey
whiteyed
whiteyer
whiteyes
whiteying
whiteyly
whiteys
whiz
whized
whizer
whizes
whizing
whizly
whizs
whoralicious
whoralicioused
whoraliciouser
whoraliciouses
whoraliciousing
whoraliciously
whoraliciouss
whore
whorealicious
whorealicioused
whorealiciouser
whorealiciouses
whorealiciousing
whorealiciously
whorealiciouss
whored
whoreded
whoreder
whoredes
whoreding
whoredly
whoreds
whoreed
whoreer
whorees
whoreface
whorefaceed
whorefaceer
whorefacees
whorefaceing
whorefacely
whorefaces
whorehopper
whorehoppered
whorehopperer
whorehopperes
whorehoppering
whorehopperly
whorehoppers
whorehouse
whorehouseed
whorehouseer
whorehousees
whorehouseing
whorehousely
whorehouses
whoreing
whorely
whores
whoresed
whoreser
whoreses
whoresing
whoresly
whoress
whoring
whoringed
whoringer
whoringes
whoringing
whoringly
whorings
wigger
wiggered
wiggerer
wiggeres
wiggering
wiggerly
wiggers
woody
woodyed
woodyer
woodyes
woodying
woodyly
woodys
wop
woped
woper
wopes
woping
woply
wops
wtf
wtfed
wtfer
wtfes
wtfing
wtfly
wtfs
xxx
xxxed
xxxer
xxxes
xxxing
xxxly
xxxs
yeasty
yeastyed
yeastyer
yeastyes
yeastying
yeastyly
yeastys
yobbo
yobboed
yobboer
yobboes
yobboing
yobboly
yobbos
zoophile
zoophileed
zoophileer
zoophilees
zoophileing
zoophilely
zoophiles
anal
ass
ass lick
balls
ballsac
bisexual
bleach
causas
cheap
cost of miracles
cunt
display network stats
fart
fda and death
fda AND warn
fda AND warning
fda AND warns
feom
fuck
gfc
humira AND expensive
illegal
madvocate
masturbation
nuccitelli
overdose
porn
shit
snort
texarkana
Bipolar depression
Depression
adolescent depression
adolescent major depressive disorder
adolescent schizophrenia
adolescent with major depressive disorder
animals
autism
baby
brexpiprazole
child
child bipolar
child depression
child schizophrenia
children with bipolar disorder
children with depression
children with major depressive disorder
compulsive behaviors
cure
elderly bipolar
elderly depression
elderly major depressive disorder
elderly schizophrenia
elderly with dementia
first break
first episode
gambling
gaming
geriatric depression
geriatric major depressive disorder
geriatric schizophrenia
infant
kid
major depressive disorder
major depressive disorder in adolescents
major depressive disorder in children
parenting
pediatric
pediatric bipolar
pediatric depression
pediatric major depressive disorder
pediatric schizophrenia
pregnancy
pregnant
rexulti
skin care
teen
wine
Negative Keywords Excluded Elements
header[@id='header']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'pane-node-field-article-topics')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
section[contains(@class, 'content-row')]
div[contains(@class, 'panel-pane pane-article-read-next')]
Altmetric
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
QuickLearn Excluded Topics/Sections
Best Practices
CME
CME Supplements
Education Center
Medical Education Library
Disqus Exclude
Best Practices
CE/CME
Education Center
Medical Education Library
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
Clinical
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
Publication LayerRX Default ID
782
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Expire Announcement Bar
Mon, 12/09/2024 - 11:13
Use larger logo size
On
publication_blueconic_enabled
Off
Show More Destinations Menu
Disable Adhesion on Publication
Off
Restore Menu Label on Mobile Navigation
Disable Facebook Pixel from Publication
Exclude this publication from publication selection on articles and quiz
Challenge Center
Disable Inline Native ads
survey writer start date
Mon, 12/09/2024 - 11:13
Current Issue
Title
Latest Issue
Description

A peer-reviewed clinical journal serving healthcare professionals working with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the Public Health Service.

Current Issue Reference

The VA Research Enterprise: A Platform for National Partnerships Toward Evidence Building and Scientific Innovation

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/31/2023 - 15:58

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) plays a substantial role in the nation’s public health through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Its statutory missions of teaching, clinical care, and research enable it to serve a foundational role in the US biomedical enterprise.1 Throughout its extensive network of VA medical centers (VAMCs) and partnering academic affiliates, thousands of clinicians and researchers have been trained to improve the lives of veterans and benefit the lives of all Americans. In supporting the largest US integrated health care system, the VA also has numerous capabilities and resources that distinctively position it to produce scientific and clinical results specifically within the context of providing care. The VA has formed partnerships with other federal agencies, industry, and nonprofit entities. Its ability to be a nexus of health care and practice, scientific discovery, and innovative ways to integrate shared interests in these areas have led to many transformative endeavors that save lives and improve the quality of care for veterans and the public.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered another mission: service in times of national emergency. Known as the Fourth Mission, the VA rapidly shifted to highlight how its health care and research enterprises could apply strengths in a unique, coordinated manner. While the Fourth Mission is typically considered in the context of clinical care, the VA’s movement toward greater integration facilitated the role of research as a key component in efforts under a learning health care model.2

VA Office of Research and Development

Within the VHA, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) develops research policy and oversees interdisciplinary efforts focused on generating evidence to improve veteran health.3 These activities span at least 100 of 171 VAMCs and include thousands of investigators and staff across all major health research disciplines. Many of these investigators are also clinicians who provide patient care and are experts in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and disorders affecting veterans.

The ORD has invested in a range of scientific, operational, regulatory, and technological assets and infrastructure as part of its enterprise. These strengths come from a nearly 100-year history originating as part of a set of hospital-based medical studies. This established the model for a culture of cooperative research within the VA and with external groups who benefit from the VA’s foundational role in multisite clinical trials.2,4,5 Today, the VA prioritizes bench-to-bedside research covering a broad spectrum of investigations, which are integrated with clinical operations and systems that deliver care.3 The VA supports an extensive range of work that covers core areas in preclinical and clinical studies to health services research, rehabilitation and implementation science, establishing expertise in genomic and data sciences, and more recent activities in artificial intelligence.

In 2017, the ORD began a focused strategy to transform into a national enterprise that capitalized on its place within the VA and its particular ability to translate and implement scientific findings into real impact for veteran health and care through 5 initiatives: (1) enhancing veteran access to high-quality clinical trials; (2) increasing the substantial real-world impact of VA Research; (3) putting VA data to work for veteran health; (4) promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion within our sphere of influence; and (5) building community through research. These activities are interrelated and, where possible, the ORD works with other VA clinical and operational offices to accomplish multiple goals and coordinate within the health care system. As such, the VA continually seeks to increase efficiencies and improve abilities that provide veterans with best-in-class health care. While still in its early stages, this strategy and its initiatives established a path for the ORD response to the pandemic.

Within 2 weeks of the World Health Organization and the US declaring a COVID-19 pandemic, the ORD began to address the developing needs and challenges of the yet unknown emerging public health threat. This included outreach to and contact from federal, academic, and industry partners. At the same time, the ORD maintained its focus and energy to support its ongoing veteran-centric research portfolio and VHA health care system needs across its broad scope of activities.

This article discusses how the pandemic accelerated the VA’s research enterprise strategy and enacted a response, highlighting the advantages and strengths of this direction. We demonstrate how this evolving strategy enabled the VA to quickly leverage partnerships during a health emergency. While the ORD and VA Research have been used interchangeably, we will attempt to distinguish between the office that serves as headquarters for the national enterprise—the ORD—and the components of that enterprise composed of scientific personnel, equipment, operational units, and partners—VA Research. Finally, we present lessons from this experience toward a broader, post–COVID-19, enterprise-wide approach that the VA has for providing evidence-based care. These experiences may enrich our understanding of postpandemic future research opportunities with the VA as a leader and partner who leverages its commitment to veterans to improve the nation’s health.

 

 

ORGANIZING THE VA COVID-19 RESEARCH RESPONSE

VA Research seeks to internally standardize and integrate collaborations with clinical and operational partners throughout the agency. When possible, it seeks to streamline partnership efforts involving external groups less familiar with how the VA operates or its policies, as well as its capabilities. This need was more obvious during the pandemic, and the ORD assembled its COVID-19 response quickly.6

figure

In early January 2020, VA offices, including the ORD, were carefully observing COVID-19. On March 4, 2020, a week before the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the ORD and its National Research Advisory Council arranged a briefing from VA public health leaders to deal with reported cases of COVID-19 and VA plans. Immediately afterward, the ORD Chief Research and Development Officer gathered a team of experts in clinical research, infectious disease, and public health to strategize a broader research enterprise approach to the pandemic. This group quickly framed 3 key targets: (1) identify critical research questions to prioritize; (2) provide operational guidance to the research community; and (3) uphold VA research staff safety. This discussion led to the creation of a larger ORD COVID-19 Research Response Team that managed activities within this scope. This team included other ORD leaders and staff with operational, scientific, and regulatory expertise charged with enterprise-level planning and execution for all research activities addressing or affected by the pandemic (Figure).

Effective and timely communication was chief among key ORD responsibilities. On March 19, 2020, the Response Team informed the VA Research community about ORD plans for organizing the VA COVID-19 research response.7 It also mobilized VA research programs and investigators to support an enterprise approach that would be coordinated centrally. We achieved communication goals by developing a dedicated website, which provided a means to distribute up-to-date notices and guidance, answer frequently asked questions, and alert investigators about research opportunities. The site enabled the field to report on its efforts, which enhanced leadership and community awareness. A working group of ORD and field personnel managed communications. Given the volume of existing non–COVID-19 research, we established a research continuity of operations plan to provide guidelines for study participant and research staff safety. The ORD issued an unprecedented full-stop administrative hold on in-person research activities after the global announcement of the pandemic. This policy provided formal protections for research programs to safeguard staff and research participants and to determine appropriate alternatives to conduct research activities within necessary social distancing, safety, and other clinical care parameters. It also aligned with guidance and requirements that local VAMCs issued for their operations and care priorities.

The Response Team also established a scientific steering committee of VA infectious disease, critical care, informatics, and epidemiology experts to prioritize research questions, identify research opportunities, and evaluate proposals using a modified expeditious scientific review process. This group also minimized duplicate scientific efforts that might be expected from a large pool of investigators simultaneously pursuing similar research questions. Committee recommendations set up a portfolio that included basic science efforts in diagnostics, clinical trials, population studies, and research infrastructure.

 

 

Leveraging Existing Infrastructure

Besides quickly organizing a central touchpoint for the VA COVID-19 research response, the ORD capitalized on its extensive nationwide infrastructure. One key component was the Cooperative Studies Program (CSP); the longstanding VA clinical research enterprise that supports the planning and conduct of large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies. The CSP includes experts at 5 data and statistical coordinating centers, a clinical research pharmacy coordinating center, and 4 epidemiological resource centers.8 CSP studies provide definitive evidence for clinical practice and care of veterans and the nation. CSP’s CONFIRM trial (CSP 577) is the largest VA interventional study with > 50,000 veterans.9 CONFIRM followed the Trial of Varicella Zoster Vaccine for the Prevention of Herpes Zoster and Its Complications (CSP 403), which involved > 38,000 participants to evaluate a vaccine to reduce the burden of illness-associated herpes zoster (shingles). In the study, the vaccine markedly reduced the shingles burden of illness among older adults.10 These studies highlight the CSP cohort development ability as evidenced by the Million Veteran Program.11

VA Research, particularly through the CSP, contributed to multiple federal actions for COVID-19. The CSP had already established partnerships with federal and industry groups in multisite clinical trials and observational studies. During COVID-19, the ORD established a COVID-19 clinical trial master protocol framework: the VA CoronavirUs Research & Efficacy Studies network.9 The CSP also supported studies by the Coronavirus Prevention Network, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As such, the VA could translate requirements in working with an industry sponsor on the rapid execution of studies within a federal health care system. Much of the success arose when there was either earlier engagement in planning and/or existing familiarity among parties with operational and regulatory requirements.

table 1

Before the pandemic, the ORD had also been working on various external partnerships to increase opportunities for veterans in clinical trial participation, particularly for cancer, which Caroff and colleagues discuss further.12 A newly emerging Partnered Research Program (PRP) offered a strategy for participation in the major COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trials. VA Research, through PRP and CSP, rapidly engaged others and managed critical communication (Table 1). In quickly pivoting to COVID-19 clinical studies, the VA also used the Networks of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES), its site-based, CSP-supported infrastructure of existing investigators and coordinators with clinical, operational, and regulatory proficiency for large trials.13,14 Together, the CSP and PRP solidified the VA’s scientific, operational, and regulatory support basis for working with industry partners and federal agencies to conduct therapeutic and vaccine trials.

Speed, Knowledge, and Safety

The scope of VA Research partnerships covers several goals but can be broadly categorized in the following ways: research aimed at evaluating the efficacy of new treatments; development of infrastructure to facilitate more rapid and innovative approaches to research; and building connections within the health care system to take an enterprise approach to research.

Activities are not limited to COVID-19. The VA partners with federal entities on research primarily through interagency agreements whose authorities are derived from the Economy Act (31 USC § 1535). For industry and nonfederal groups, the VA enters into Cooperative Research and Development Agreements that are rooted in the Federal Technology Transfer Act (15 USC § 3710). Although the VA has experience in each of these processes, COVID-19 prompted many groups, existing partners and new ones, to engage with the VA. Consequently, the ORD needed to quickly understand the complexities of how to handle such engagements on a larger scale. The VA Research enterprise strategy also focused on facilitating these processes.

As part of VA integration goals, ORD leaders engaged VA clinical leaders, especially in Public Health, Preventive Medicine, Pharmacy Benefits Management, and Pathology and Laboratory services. The ORD also worked closely with operational leaders, including those responsible for the Veterans Integrated Service Networks and VAMC chiefs of staff and network chief medical officers. The ORD’s familiarity with coordinating complex activities for research further helped to organize nonresearch responses for clinical needs and resources to support the VA COVID-19 response. The Office of the Under Secretary for Health recognized VA Research’s critical role as part of the VA health care system. In turn, it served as a major champion to drive success among the active research efforts, especially the partnered efforts, responding to COVID-19. Continuously communicating support and offering resources for the agency’s overall COVID-19 response reinforced the positive impact of VA Research that extended beyond its traditional roles. That is, the research component of VHA was highlighted as an integral part of the COVID-19 response along with its clinical operations. This integrated approach was perhaps best demonstrated in a VHA-wide push to start and conduct the national vaccine efficacy trials.

Other COVID-19 research supported by the ORD included participation in the Mayo Clinic–led convalescent plasma expanded access treatment protocol, which had emerged as a potential therapeutic option.15 The ORD provided centralized regulatory support to nearly 100 VAMCs, helping to reduce inconsistencies in protocol approval processes for what was hoped to be a promising treatment for COVID-19.16 This rapid approach to address a real-time treatment option demonstrated the VA Research capability for swift mobilization in an emergency.

The ORD also coordinated with other federal agencies. For example, it collaborated with the US Department of Defense to begin a parallel observational study on COVID-19 infections and potential severe outcomes. The study enrolled > 3000 veterans who are being followed for up to 2 years to better understand the natural history and course of COVID-19.17 Other interagency efforts focused on vaccine and therapeutic trials, including Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) with the National Institutes of Health. In these activities, VA Research helped increase recruitment, particularly of a more diverse patient population, in helping to assess promising treatments.10

table 2

Motivated by its expanding portfolio of COVID-19 intervention studies, the VA also created a COVID-19 research registry for all VA investigators. This registry included almost 59,000 veterans who indicated a willingness to volunteer for clinical studies. This registry exemplified a long-standing tradition of veterans willing to serve their nation again in a time of need. Iaquinto and colleagues showcased how VHA programs (eg, Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning) collaborated by expediting a study on 3D-printed swabs to address supply chain shortages. The study, which involved the FDA, showed that the printed swabs were as effective as commercially available ones.18 It provided evidence supporting the production and dissemination of a greater number of testing swabs to the public while also reducing the cost and time requirements (Table 2).

Altogether, these collaborative efforts advanced a transformative approach within the VA that was already happening but was accelerated by the pandemic. Such activities enabled greater understanding throughout the VA for how research is not merely complementary but an integrated part of how veterans receive health care. By giving opportunities to veterans to participate in studies, especially clinical studies, the VA created a path in which such expectations, understanding, and operations were more fluid.

 

 

Future Directions

The VA continues to work for veterans by emphasizing its strategic goals and strengths in clinical, data science, and other pioneering activities at an enterprise level to provide the highest quality evidence for care. These capabilities perpetuate a scientific and learning environment that also builds toward the future by giving junior investigators and others opportunities to work within a national health care setting. In turn, this provides a more focused perspective on endeavors that align with the VA mission through ORD-supported career development, merit review (independent investigator submissions), and CSP.19 Preclinical, health services, genomic, and implementation research were given insights into more effective operational and methodological partnerships to help inform the health care system. The pandemic also served to strengthen our ability to mobilize and prepare even faster for emergencies and other potential disease outbreaks, including newer pandemic concerns (eg, mpox, Ebola) from research and public health perspectives.

Conclusions

Throughout its 100-year history, VA Research has been a critical, enduring institution within the national medical landscape. The ability to collaborate with partners has helped us to design and create even better processes, optimize and maximize our infrastructure, and learn more about common research interests that can be even more responsive to national health care needs. As an enterprise, VA Research also aims to continually learn and expand on these valuable lessons gained from internal, interagency, and industry collaborations to effectively meet and exceed our mission to serve our veterans.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Daphne Swancutt for her contribution as copywriter for this manuscript.

References

1. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Functional organization manual: description of organization, structure, missions, functions, tasks, and authorities. Version 6. 2020. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.va.gov/VA-Functional-Organization-Manual-2020-4.pdf

2. Kilbourne AM, Schmidt J, Edmunds M, Vega R, Bowersox N, Atkins D. How the VA is training the next-generation workforce for learning health systems. Learn Health Syst. 2022;6(4):e10333. Published 2022 Aug 16. doi:10.1002/lrh2.10333

3. O’Leary TJ, Dominitz JA, Chang KM. Veterans Affairs office of research and development: research programs and emerging opportunities in digestive diseases research. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(7):1652-1661. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.021

4. Tucker WB. The evolution of the cooperative studies in the chemotherapy of tuberculosis of the Veterans Administration and armed forces of the U.S.A. An account of the evolving education of the physician in clinical pharmacology. Bibl Tuberc. 1960;15:1-68.

5. Hays MT; Veterans Health Administration. A historical look at the establishment of the Department of Veterans Affairs research & development program. https://www.research.va.gov/pubs/docs/ORD-85yrHistory.pdf

6. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) response report – annex a. May 10, 2021. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.va.gov/health/docs/VHA-COVID-19-Response-2021.pdf

7. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. ORD Research Response to COVID-19. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Updated March 24, 2020. Accessed September 11, 2023. www.research.va.gov/programs/orppe/education/webinars/orppe-031920.cfm

8. Burnaska DR, Huang GD, O’Leary TJ. Clinical trials proposed for the VA cooperative studies program: success rates and factors impacting approval. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2021;23:100811. Published 2021 Jul 9. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100811

9. US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA CoronavirUs Research & Efficacy Studies (VA CURES). Updated January 6, 2022. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.research.va.gov/services/csrd/va_cures/default.cfm

10. Oxman MN, Levin MJ, Johnson GR, et al. A vaccine to prevent herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(22):2271-2284. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa051016

11. Whitbourne SB, Moser J, Cho K, et al. Leveraging the Million Veteran Program infrastructure and data for a rapid research response to COVID-19. Fed Pract. 2023;40(suppl 5):S23-S28. doi:10.12788/fp.0416

12. Caroff K, Davey V, Smyth M, et al. VA lessons from partnering in COVID-19 clinical trials. Fed Pract. 2023;40(suppl 5): S18-S22. doi:10.12788/fp.0415

13. Condon DL, Beck D, Kenworthy-Heinige T, et al. A cross-cutting approach to enhancing clinical trial site success: the Department of Veterans Affairs’ network of dedicated enrollment sites (NODES) model. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;6:78-84. Published 2017 Mar 29. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2017.03.006

14. McClure J, Asghar A, Krajec A, et al. Clinical trial facilitators: a novel approach to support the execution of clinical research at the study site level. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2023;33:101106. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101106

15. Joyner M. Expanded access to convalescent plasma for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04338360. April 8, 2020. Updated September 2, 2020. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04338360

16. Joyner MJ, Wright RS, Fairweather D, et al. Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(9):4791-4797. doi:10.1172/JCI140200

17. Lee JS, Smith NL. Epidemiology, immunology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 (EPIC3). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05764083. March 10, 2023. Updated August 1, 2023. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05764083

18. Iaquinto J, Ripley B, Dorn PA. How VA innovative partnerships and health care system can respond to national needs: NOSE trial example. Fed Pract. 2023;40(suppl 5):S52-S56. doi:10.12788/fp.0418

19. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Health Services Research & Development research career development program. Updated March 4, 2021. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://hsrd.research.va.gov/cdp/

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Amanda P. Garcia, MPHa; Grant D. Huang, MPH, PhDa; Louise Arnheim, MPAb; Rachel B. Ramoni, DMD, ScDa; Carolyn M. Clancy, MDb

Correspondence:  Amanda Garcia  ([email protected])

Author affiliations

aOffice of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC

bOffice of Discovery, Education and Affiliate Networks, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent

Not applicable.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(5)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S12
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Amanda P. Garcia, MPHa; Grant D. Huang, MPH, PhDa; Louise Arnheim, MPAb; Rachel B. Ramoni, DMD, ScDa; Carolyn M. Clancy, MDb

Correspondence:  Amanda Garcia  ([email protected])

Author affiliations

aOffice of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC

bOffice of Discovery, Education and Affiliate Networks, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent

Not applicable.

Author and Disclosure Information

Amanda P. Garcia, MPHa; Grant D. Huang, MPH, PhDa; Louise Arnheim, MPAb; Rachel B. Ramoni, DMD, ScDa; Carolyn M. Clancy, MDb

Correspondence:  Amanda Garcia  ([email protected])

Author affiliations

aOffice of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC

bOffice of Discovery, Education and Affiliate Networks, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent

Not applicable.

Article PDF
Article PDF

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) plays a substantial role in the nation’s public health through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Its statutory missions of teaching, clinical care, and research enable it to serve a foundational role in the US biomedical enterprise.1 Throughout its extensive network of VA medical centers (VAMCs) and partnering academic affiliates, thousands of clinicians and researchers have been trained to improve the lives of veterans and benefit the lives of all Americans. In supporting the largest US integrated health care system, the VA also has numerous capabilities and resources that distinctively position it to produce scientific and clinical results specifically within the context of providing care. The VA has formed partnerships with other federal agencies, industry, and nonprofit entities. Its ability to be a nexus of health care and practice, scientific discovery, and innovative ways to integrate shared interests in these areas have led to many transformative endeavors that save lives and improve the quality of care for veterans and the public.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered another mission: service in times of national emergency. Known as the Fourth Mission, the VA rapidly shifted to highlight how its health care and research enterprises could apply strengths in a unique, coordinated manner. While the Fourth Mission is typically considered in the context of clinical care, the VA’s movement toward greater integration facilitated the role of research as a key component in efforts under a learning health care model.2

VA Office of Research and Development

Within the VHA, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) develops research policy and oversees interdisciplinary efforts focused on generating evidence to improve veteran health.3 These activities span at least 100 of 171 VAMCs and include thousands of investigators and staff across all major health research disciplines. Many of these investigators are also clinicians who provide patient care and are experts in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and disorders affecting veterans.

The ORD has invested in a range of scientific, operational, regulatory, and technological assets and infrastructure as part of its enterprise. These strengths come from a nearly 100-year history originating as part of a set of hospital-based medical studies. This established the model for a culture of cooperative research within the VA and with external groups who benefit from the VA’s foundational role in multisite clinical trials.2,4,5 Today, the VA prioritizes bench-to-bedside research covering a broad spectrum of investigations, which are integrated with clinical operations and systems that deliver care.3 The VA supports an extensive range of work that covers core areas in preclinical and clinical studies to health services research, rehabilitation and implementation science, establishing expertise in genomic and data sciences, and more recent activities in artificial intelligence.

In 2017, the ORD began a focused strategy to transform into a national enterprise that capitalized on its place within the VA and its particular ability to translate and implement scientific findings into real impact for veteran health and care through 5 initiatives: (1) enhancing veteran access to high-quality clinical trials; (2) increasing the substantial real-world impact of VA Research; (3) putting VA data to work for veteran health; (4) promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion within our sphere of influence; and (5) building community through research. These activities are interrelated and, where possible, the ORD works with other VA clinical and operational offices to accomplish multiple goals and coordinate within the health care system. As such, the VA continually seeks to increase efficiencies and improve abilities that provide veterans with best-in-class health care. While still in its early stages, this strategy and its initiatives established a path for the ORD response to the pandemic.

Within 2 weeks of the World Health Organization and the US declaring a COVID-19 pandemic, the ORD began to address the developing needs and challenges of the yet unknown emerging public health threat. This included outreach to and contact from federal, academic, and industry partners. At the same time, the ORD maintained its focus and energy to support its ongoing veteran-centric research portfolio and VHA health care system needs across its broad scope of activities.

This article discusses how the pandemic accelerated the VA’s research enterprise strategy and enacted a response, highlighting the advantages and strengths of this direction. We demonstrate how this evolving strategy enabled the VA to quickly leverage partnerships during a health emergency. While the ORD and VA Research have been used interchangeably, we will attempt to distinguish between the office that serves as headquarters for the national enterprise—the ORD—and the components of that enterprise composed of scientific personnel, equipment, operational units, and partners—VA Research. Finally, we present lessons from this experience toward a broader, post–COVID-19, enterprise-wide approach that the VA has for providing evidence-based care. These experiences may enrich our understanding of postpandemic future research opportunities with the VA as a leader and partner who leverages its commitment to veterans to improve the nation’s health.

 

 

ORGANIZING THE VA COVID-19 RESEARCH RESPONSE

VA Research seeks to internally standardize and integrate collaborations with clinical and operational partners throughout the agency. When possible, it seeks to streamline partnership efforts involving external groups less familiar with how the VA operates or its policies, as well as its capabilities. This need was more obvious during the pandemic, and the ORD assembled its COVID-19 response quickly.6

figure

In early January 2020, VA offices, including the ORD, were carefully observing COVID-19. On March 4, 2020, a week before the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the ORD and its National Research Advisory Council arranged a briefing from VA public health leaders to deal with reported cases of COVID-19 and VA plans. Immediately afterward, the ORD Chief Research and Development Officer gathered a team of experts in clinical research, infectious disease, and public health to strategize a broader research enterprise approach to the pandemic. This group quickly framed 3 key targets: (1) identify critical research questions to prioritize; (2) provide operational guidance to the research community; and (3) uphold VA research staff safety. This discussion led to the creation of a larger ORD COVID-19 Research Response Team that managed activities within this scope. This team included other ORD leaders and staff with operational, scientific, and regulatory expertise charged with enterprise-level planning and execution for all research activities addressing or affected by the pandemic (Figure).

Effective and timely communication was chief among key ORD responsibilities. On March 19, 2020, the Response Team informed the VA Research community about ORD plans for organizing the VA COVID-19 research response.7 It also mobilized VA research programs and investigators to support an enterprise approach that would be coordinated centrally. We achieved communication goals by developing a dedicated website, which provided a means to distribute up-to-date notices and guidance, answer frequently asked questions, and alert investigators about research opportunities. The site enabled the field to report on its efforts, which enhanced leadership and community awareness. A working group of ORD and field personnel managed communications. Given the volume of existing non–COVID-19 research, we established a research continuity of operations plan to provide guidelines for study participant and research staff safety. The ORD issued an unprecedented full-stop administrative hold on in-person research activities after the global announcement of the pandemic. This policy provided formal protections for research programs to safeguard staff and research participants and to determine appropriate alternatives to conduct research activities within necessary social distancing, safety, and other clinical care parameters. It also aligned with guidance and requirements that local VAMCs issued for their operations and care priorities.

The Response Team also established a scientific steering committee of VA infectious disease, critical care, informatics, and epidemiology experts to prioritize research questions, identify research opportunities, and evaluate proposals using a modified expeditious scientific review process. This group also minimized duplicate scientific efforts that might be expected from a large pool of investigators simultaneously pursuing similar research questions. Committee recommendations set up a portfolio that included basic science efforts in diagnostics, clinical trials, population studies, and research infrastructure.

 

 

Leveraging Existing Infrastructure

Besides quickly organizing a central touchpoint for the VA COVID-19 research response, the ORD capitalized on its extensive nationwide infrastructure. One key component was the Cooperative Studies Program (CSP); the longstanding VA clinical research enterprise that supports the planning and conduct of large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies. The CSP includes experts at 5 data and statistical coordinating centers, a clinical research pharmacy coordinating center, and 4 epidemiological resource centers.8 CSP studies provide definitive evidence for clinical practice and care of veterans and the nation. CSP’s CONFIRM trial (CSP 577) is the largest VA interventional study with > 50,000 veterans.9 CONFIRM followed the Trial of Varicella Zoster Vaccine for the Prevention of Herpes Zoster and Its Complications (CSP 403), which involved > 38,000 participants to evaluate a vaccine to reduce the burden of illness-associated herpes zoster (shingles). In the study, the vaccine markedly reduced the shingles burden of illness among older adults.10 These studies highlight the CSP cohort development ability as evidenced by the Million Veteran Program.11

VA Research, particularly through the CSP, contributed to multiple federal actions for COVID-19. The CSP had already established partnerships with federal and industry groups in multisite clinical trials and observational studies. During COVID-19, the ORD established a COVID-19 clinical trial master protocol framework: the VA CoronavirUs Research & Efficacy Studies network.9 The CSP also supported studies by the Coronavirus Prevention Network, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As such, the VA could translate requirements in working with an industry sponsor on the rapid execution of studies within a federal health care system. Much of the success arose when there was either earlier engagement in planning and/or existing familiarity among parties with operational and regulatory requirements.

table 1

Before the pandemic, the ORD had also been working on various external partnerships to increase opportunities for veterans in clinical trial participation, particularly for cancer, which Caroff and colleagues discuss further.12 A newly emerging Partnered Research Program (PRP) offered a strategy for participation in the major COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trials. VA Research, through PRP and CSP, rapidly engaged others and managed critical communication (Table 1). In quickly pivoting to COVID-19 clinical studies, the VA also used the Networks of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES), its site-based, CSP-supported infrastructure of existing investigators and coordinators with clinical, operational, and regulatory proficiency for large trials.13,14 Together, the CSP and PRP solidified the VA’s scientific, operational, and regulatory support basis for working with industry partners and federal agencies to conduct therapeutic and vaccine trials.

Speed, Knowledge, and Safety

The scope of VA Research partnerships covers several goals but can be broadly categorized in the following ways: research aimed at evaluating the efficacy of new treatments; development of infrastructure to facilitate more rapid and innovative approaches to research; and building connections within the health care system to take an enterprise approach to research.

Activities are not limited to COVID-19. The VA partners with federal entities on research primarily through interagency agreements whose authorities are derived from the Economy Act (31 USC § 1535). For industry and nonfederal groups, the VA enters into Cooperative Research and Development Agreements that are rooted in the Federal Technology Transfer Act (15 USC § 3710). Although the VA has experience in each of these processes, COVID-19 prompted many groups, existing partners and new ones, to engage with the VA. Consequently, the ORD needed to quickly understand the complexities of how to handle such engagements on a larger scale. The VA Research enterprise strategy also focused on facilitating these processes.

As part of VA integration goals, ORD leaders engaged VA clinical leaders, especially in Public Health, Preventive Medicine, Pharmacy Benefits Management, and Pathology and Laboratory services. The ORD also worked closely with operational leaders, including those responsible for the Veterans Integrated Service Networks and VAMC chiefs of staff and network chief medical officers. The ORD’s familiarity with coordinating complex activities for research further helped to organize nonresearch responses for clinical needs and resources to support the VA COVID-19 response. The Office of the Under Secretary for Health recognized VA Research’s critical role as part of the VA health care system. In turn, it served as a major champion to drive success among the active research efforts, especially the partnered efforts, responding to COVID-19. Continuously communicating support and offering resources for the agency’s overall COVID-19 response reinforced the positive impact of VA Research that extended beyond its traditional roles. That is, the research component of VHA was highlighted as an integral part of the COVID-19 response along with its clinical operations. This integrated approach was perhaps best demonstrated in a VHA-wide push to start and conduct the national vaccine efficacy trials.

Other COVID-19 research supported by the ORD included participation in the Mayo Clinic–led convalescent plasma expanded access treatment protocol, which had emerged as a potential therapeutic option.15 The ORD provided centralized regulatory support to nearly 100 VAMCs, helping to reduce inconsistencies in protocol approval processes for what was hoped to be a promising treatment for COVID-19.16 This rapid approach to address a real-time treatment option demonstrated the VA Research capability for swift mobilization in an emergency.

The ORD also coordinated with other federal agencies. For example, it collaborated with the US Department of Defense to begin a parallel observational study on COVID-19 infections and potential severe outcomes. The study enrolled > 3000 veterans who are being followed for up to 2 years to better understand the natural history and course of COVID-19.17 Other interagency efforts focused on vaccine and therapeutic trials, including Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) with the National Institutes of Health. In these activities, VA Research helped increase recruitment, particularly of a more diverse patient population, in helping to assess promising treatments.10

table 2

Motivated by its expanding portfolio of COVID-19 intervention studies, the VA also created a COVID-19 research registry for all VA investigators. This registry included almost 59,000 veterans who indicated a willingness to volunteer for clinical studies. This registry exemplified a long-standing tradition of veterans willing to serve their nation again in a time of need. Iaquinto and colleagues showcased how VHA programs (eg, Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning) collaborated by expediting a study on 3D-printed swabs to address supply chain shortages. The study, which involved the FDA, showed that the printed swabs were as effective as commercially available ones.18 It provided evidence supporting the production and dissemination of a greater number of testing swabs to the public while also reducing the cost and time requirements (Table 2).

Altogether, these collaborative efforts advanced a transformative approach within the VA that was already happening but was accelerated by the pandemic. Such activities enabled greater understanding throughout the VA for how research is not merely complementary but an integrated part of how veterans receive health care. By giving opportunities to veterans to participate in studies, especially clinical studies, the VA created a path in which such expectations, understanding, and operations were more fluid.

 

 

Future Directions

The VA continues to work for veterans by emphasizing its strategic goals and strengths in clinical, data science, and other pioneering activities at an enterprise level to provide the highest quality evidence for care. These capabilities perpetuate a scientific and learning environment that also builds toward the future by giving junior investigators and others opportunities to work within a national health care setting. In turn, this provides a more focused perspective on endeavors that align with the VA mission through ORD-supported career development, merit review (independent investigator submissions), and CSP.19 Preclinical, health services, genomic, and implementation research were given insights into more effective operational and methodological partnerships to help inform the health care system. The pandemic also served to strengthen our ability to mobilize and prepare even faster for emergencies and other potential disease outbreaks, including newer pandemic concerns (eg, mpox, Ebola) from research and public health perspectives.

Conclusions

Throughout its 100-year history, VA Research has been a critical, enduring institution within the national medical landscape. The ability to collaborate with partners has helped us to design and create even better processes, optimize and maximize our infrastructure, and learn more about common research interests that can be even more responsive to national health care needs. As an enterprise, VA Research also aims to continually learn and expand on these valuable lessons gained from internal, interagency, and industry collaborations to effectively meet and exceed our mission to serve our veterans.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Daphne Swancutt for her contribution as copywriter for this manuscript.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) plays a substantial role in the nation’s public health through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Its statutory missions of teaching, clinical care, and research enable it to serve a foundational role in the US biomedical enterprise.1 Throughout its extensive network of VA medical centers (VAMCs) and partnering academic affiliates, thousands of clinicians and researchers have been trained to improve the lives of veterans and benefit the lives of all Americans. In supporting the largest US integrated health care system, the VA also has numerous capabilities and resources that distinctively position it to produce scientific and clinical results specifically within the context of providing care. The VA has formed partnerships with other federal agencies, industry, and nonprofit entities. Its ability to be a nexus of health care and practice, scientific discovery, and innovative ways to integrate shared interests in these areas have led to many transformative endeavors that save lives and improve the quality of care for veterans and the public.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered another mission: service in times of national emergency. Known as the Fourth Mission, the VA rapidly shifted to highlight how its health care and research enterprises could apply strengths in a unique, coordinated manner. While the Fourth Mission is typically considered in the context of clinical care, the VA’s movement toward greater integration facilitated the role of research as a key component in efforts under a learning health care model.2

VA Office of Research and Development

Within the VHA, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) develops research policy and oversees interdisciplinary efforts focused on generating evidence to improve veteran health.3 These activities span at least 100 of 171 VAMCs and include thousands of investigators and staff across all major health research disciplines. Many of these investigators are also clinicians who provide patient care and are experts in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and disorders affecting veterans.

The ORD has invested in a range of scientific, operational, regulatory, and technological assets and infrastructure as part of its enterprise. These strengths come from a nearly 100-year history originating as part of a set of hospital-based medical studies. This established the model for a culture of cooperative research within the VA and with external groups who benefit from the VA’s foundational role in multisite clinical trials.2,4,5 Today, the VA prioritizes bench-to-bedside research covering a broad spectrum of investigations, which are integrated with clinical operations and systems that deliver care.3 The VA supports an extensive range of work that covers core areas in preclinical and clinical studies to health services research, rehabilitation and implementation science, establishing expertise in genomic and data sciences, and more recent activities in artificial intelligence.

In 2017, the ORD began a focused strategy to transform into a national enterprise that capitalized on its place within the VA and its particular ability to translate and implement scientific findings into real impact for veteran health and care through 5 initiatives: (1) enhancing veteran access to high-quality clinical trials; (2) increasing the substantial real-world impact of VA Research; (3) putting VA data to work for veteran health; (4) promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion within our sphere of influence; and (5) building community through research. These activities are interrelated and, where possible, the ORD works with other VA clinical and operational offices to accomplish multiple goals and coordinate within the health care system. As such, the VA continually seeks to increase efficiencies and improve abilities that provide veterans with best-in-class health care. While still in its early stages, this strategy and its initiatives established a path for the ORD response to the pandemic.

Within 2 weeks of the World Health Organization and the US declaring a COVID-19 pandemic, the ORD began to address the developing needs and challenges of the yet unknown emerging public health threat. This included outreach to and contact from federal, academic, and industry partners. At the same time, the ORD maintained its focus and energy to support its ongoing veteran-centric research portfolio and VHA health care system needs across its broad scope of activities.

This article discusses how the pandemic accelerated the VA’s research enterprise strategy and enacted a response, highlighting the advantages and strengths of this direction. We demonstrate how this evolving strategy enabled the VA to quickly leverage partnerships during a health emergency. While the ORD and VA Research have been used interchangeably, we will attempt to distinguish between the office that serves as headquarters for the national enterprise—the ORD—and the components of that enterprise composed of scientific personnel, equipment, operational units, and partners—VA Research. Finally, we present lessons from this experience toward a broader, post–COVID-19, enterprise-wide approach that the VA has for providing evidence-based care. These experiences may enrich our understanding of postpandemic future research opportunities with the VA as a leader and partner who leverages its commitment to veterans to improve the nation’s health.

 

 

ORGANIZING THE VA COVID-19 RESEARCH RESPONSE

VA Research seeks to internally standardize and integrate collaborations with clinical and operational partners throughout the agency. When possible, it seeks to streamline partnership efforts involving external groups less familiar with how the VA operates or its policies, as well as its capabilities. This need was more obvious during the pandemic, and the ORD assembled its COVID-19 response quickly.6

figure

In early January 2020, VA offices, including the ORD, were carefully observing COVID-19. On March 4, 2020, a week before the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the ORD and its National Research Advisory Council arranged a briefing from VA public health leaders to deal with reported cases of COVID-19 and VA plans. Immediately afterward, the ORD Chief Research and Development Officer gathered a team of experts in clinical research, infectious disease, and public health to strategize a broader research enterprise approach to the pandemic. This group quickly framed 3 key targets: (1) identify critical research questions to prioritize; (2) provide operational guidance to the research community; and (3) uphold VA research staff safety. This discussion led to the creation of a larger ORD COVID-19 Research Response Team that managed activities within this scope. This team included other ORD leaders and staff with operational, scientific, and regulatory expertise charged with enterprise-level planning and execution for all research activities addressing or affected by the pandemic (Figure).

Effective and timely communication was chief among key ORD responsibilities. On March 19, 2020, the Response Team informed the VA Research community about ORD plans for organizing the VA COVID-19 research response.7 It also mobilized VA research programs and investigators to support an enterprise approach that would be coordinated centrally. We achieved communication goals by developing a dedicated website, which provided a means to distribute up-to-date notices and guidance, answer frequently asked questions, and alert investigators about research opportunities. The site enabled the field to report on its efforts, which enhanced leadership and community awareness. A working group of ORD and field personnel managed communications. Given the volume of existing non–COVID-19 research, we established a research continuity of operations plan to provide guidelines for study participant and research staff safety. The ORD issued an unprecedented full-stop administrative hold on in-person research activities after the global announcement of the pandemic. This policy provided formal protections for research programs to safeguard staff and research participants and to determine appropriate alternatives to conduct research activities within necessary social distancing, safety, and other clinical care parameters. It also aligned with guidance and requirements that local VAMCs issued for their operations and care priorities.

The Response Team also established a scientific steering committee of VA infectious disease, critical care, informatics, and epidemiology experts to prioritize research questions, identify research opportunities, and evaluate proposals using a modified expeditious scientific review process. This group also minimized duplicate scientific efforts that might be expected from a large pool of investigators simultaneously pursuing similar research questions. Committee recommendations set up a portfolio that included basic science efforts in diagnostics, clinical trials, population studies, and research infrastructure.

 

 

Leveraging Existing Infrastructure

Besides quickly organizing a central touchpoint for the VA COVID-19 research response, the ORD capitalized on its extensive nationwide infrastructure. One key component was the Cooperative Studies Program (CSP); the longstanding VA clinical research enterprise that supports the planning and conduct of large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies. The CSP includes experts at 5 data and statistical coordinating centers, a clinical research pharmacy coordinating center, and 4 epidemiological resource centers.8 CSP studies provide definitive evidence for clinical practice and care of veterans and the nation. CSP’s CONFIRM trial (CSP 577) is the largest VA interventional study with > 50,000 veterans.9 CONFIRM followed the Trial of Varicella Zoster Vaccine for the Prevention of Herpes Zoster and Its Complications (CSP 403), which involved > 38,000 participants to evaluate a vaccine to reduce the burden of illness-associated herpes zoster (shingles). In the study, the vaccine markedly reduced the shingles burden of illness among older adults.10 These studies highlight the CSP cohort development ability as evidenced by the Million Veteran Program.11

VA Research, particularly through the CSP, contributed to multiple federal actions for COVID-19. The CSP had already established partnerships with federal and industry groups in multisite clinical trials and observational studies. During COVID-19, the ORD established a COVID-19 clinical trial master protocol framework: the VA CoronavirUs Research & Efficacy Studies network.9 The CSP also supported studies by the Coronavirus Prevention Network, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As such, the VA could translate requirements in working with an industry sponsor on the rapid execution of studies within a federal health care system. Much of the success arose when there was either earlier engagement in planning and/or existing familiarity among parties with operational and regulatory requirements.

table 1

Before the pandemic, the ORD had also been working on various external partnerships to increase opportunities for veterans in clinical trial participation, particularly for cancer, which Caroff and colleagues discuss further.12 A newly emerging Partnered Research Program (PRP) offered a strategy for participation in the major COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trials. VA Research, through PRP and CSP, rapidly engaged others and managed critical communication (Table 1). In quickly pivoting to COVID-19 clinical studies, the VA also used the Networks of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES), its site-based, CSP-supported infrastructure of existing investigators and coordinators with clinical, operational, and regulatory proficiency for large trials.13,14 Together, the CSP and PRP solidified the VA’s scientific, operational, and regulatory support basis for working with industry partners and federal agencies to conduct therapeutic and vaccine trials.

Speed, Knowledge, and Safety

The scope of VA Research partnerships covers several goals but can be broadly categorized in the following ways: research aimed at evaluating the efficacy of new treatments; development of infrastructure to facilitate more rapid and innovative approaches to research; and building connections within the health care system to take an enterprise approach to research.

Activities are not limited to COVID-19. The VA partners with federal entities on research primarily through interagency agreements whose authorities are derived from the Economy Act (31 USC § 1535). For industry and nonfederal groups, the VA enters into Cooperative Research and Development Agreements that are rooted in the Federal Technology Transfer Act (15 USC § 3710). Although the VA has experience in each of these processes, COVID-19 prompted many groups, existing partners and new ones, to engage with the VA. Consequently, the ORD needed to quickly understand the complexities of how to handle such engagements on a larger scale. The VA Research enterprise strategy also focused on facilitating these processes.

As part of VA integration goals, ORD leaders engaged VA clinical leaders, especially in Public Health, Preventive Medicine, Pharmacy Benefits Management, and Pathology and Laboratory services. The ORD also worked closely with operational leaders, including those responsible for the Veterans Integrated Service Networks and VAMC chiefs of staff and network chief medical officers. The ORD’s familiarity with coordinating complex activities for research further helped to organize nonresearch responses for clinical needs and resources to support the VA COVID-19 response. The Office of the Under Secretary for Health recognized VA Research’s critical role as part of the VA health care system. In turn, it served as a major champion to drive success among the active research efforts, especially the partnered efforts, responding to COVID-19. Continuously communicating support and offering resources for the agency’s overall COVID-19 response reinforced the positive impact of VA Research that extended beyond its traditional roles. That is, the research component of VHA was highlighted as an integral part of the COVID-19 response along with its clinical operations. This integrated approach was perhaps best demonstrated in a VHA-wide push to start and conduct the national vaccine efficacy trials.

Other COVID-19 research supported by the ORD included participation in the Mayo Clinic–led convalescent plasma expanded access treatment protocol, which had emerged as a potential therapeutic option.15 The ORD provided centralized regulatory support to nearly 100 VAMCs, helping to reduce inconsistencies in protocol approval processes for what was hoped to be a promising treatment for COVID-19.16 This rapid approach to address a real-time treatment option demonstrated the VA Research capability for swift mobilization in an emergency.

The ORD also coordinated with other federal agencies. For example, it collaborated with the US Department of Defense to begin a parallel observational study on COVID-19 infections and potential severe outcomes. The study enrolled > 3000 veterans who are being followed for up to 2 years to better understand the natural history and course of COVID-19.17 Other interagency efforts focused on vaccine and therapeutic trials, including Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) with the National Institutes of Health. In these activities, VA Research helped increase recruitment, particularly of a more diverse patient population, in helping to assess promising treatments.10

table 2

Motivated by its expanding portfolio of COVID-19 intervention studies, the VA also created a COVID-19 research registry for all VA investigators. This registry included almost 59,000 veterans who indicated a willingness to volunteer for clinical studies. This registry exemplified a long-standing tradition of veterans willing to serve their nation again in a time of need. Iaquinto and colleagues showcased how VHA programs (eg, Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning) collaborated by expediting a study on 3D-printed swabs to address supply chain shortages. The study, which involved the FDA, showed that the printed swabs were as effective as commercially available ones.18 It provided evidence supporting the production and dissemination of a greater number of testing swabs to the public while also reducing the cost and time requirements (Table 2).

Altogether, these collaborative efforts advanced a transformative approach within the VA that was already happening but was accelerated by the pandemic. Such activities enabled greater understanding throughout the VA for how research is not merely complementary but an integrated part of how veterans receive health care. By giving opportunities to veterans to participate in studies, especially clinical studies, the VA created a path in which such expectations, understanding, and operations were more fluid.

 

 

Future Directions

The VA continues to work for veterans by emphasizing its strategic goals and strengths in clinical, data science, and other pioneering activities at an enterprise level to provide the highest quality evidence for care. These capabilities perpetuate a scientific and learning environment that also builds toward the future by giving junior investigators and others opportunities to work within a national health care setting. In turn, this provides a more focused perspective on endeavors that align with the VA mission through ORD-supported career development, merit review (independent investigator submissions), and CSP.19 Preclinical, health services, genomic, and implementation research were given insights into more effective operational and methodological partnerships to help inform the health care system. The pandemic also served to strengthen our ability to mobilize and prepare even faster for emergencies and other potential disease outbreaks, including newer pandemic concerns (eg, mpox, Ebola) from research and public health perspectives.

Conclusions

Throughout its 100-year history, VA Research has been a critical, enduring institution within the national medical landscape. The ability to collaborate with partners has helped us to design and create even better processes, optimize and maximize our infrastructure, and learn more about common research interests that can be even more responsive to national health care needs. As an enterprise, VA Research also aims to continually learn and expand on these valuable lessons gained from internal, interagency, and industry collaborations to effectively meet and exceed our mission to serve our veterans.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Daphne Swancutt for her contribution as copywriter for this manuscript.

References

1. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Functional organization manual: description of organization, structure, missions, functions, tasks, and authorities. Version 6. 2020. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.va.gov/VA-Functional-Organization-Manual-2020-4.pdf

2. Kilbourne AM, Schmidt J, Edmunds M, Vega R, Bowersox N, Atkins D. How the VA is training the next-generation workforce for learning health systems. Learn Health Syst. 2022;6(4):e10333. Published 2022 Aug 16. doi:10.1002/lrh2.10333

3. O’Leary TJ, Dominitz JA, Chang KM. Veterans Affairs office of research and development: research programs and emerging opportunities in digestive diseases research. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(7):1652-1661. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.021

4. Tucker WB. The evolution of the cooperative studies in the chemotherapy of tuberculosis of the Veterans Administration and armed forces of the U.S.A. An account of the evolving education of the physician in clinical pharmacology. Bibl Tuberc. 1960;15:1-68.

5. Hays MT; Veterans Health Administration. A historical look at the establishment of the Department of Veterans Affairs research & development program. https://www.research.va.gov/pubs/docs/ORD-85yrHistory.pdf

6. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) response report – annex a. May 10, 2021. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.va.gov/health/docs/VHA-COVID-19-Response-2021.pdf

7. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. ORD Research Response to COVID-19. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Updated March 24, 2020. Accessed September 11, 2023. www.research.va.gov/programs/orppe/education/webinars/orppe-031920.cfm

8. Burnaska DR, Huang GD, O’Leary TJ. Clinical trials proposed for the VA cooperative studies program: success rates and factors impacting approval. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2021;23:100811. Published 2021 Jul 9. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100811

9. US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA CoronavirUs Research & Efficacy Studies (VA CURES). Updated January 6, 2022. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.research.va.gov/services/csrd/va_cures/default.cfm

10. Oxman MN, Levin MJ, Johnson GR, et al. A vaccine to prevent herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(22):2271-2284. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa051016

11. Whitbourne SB, Moser J, Cho K, et al. Leveraging the Million Veteran Program infrastructure and data for a rapid research response to COVID-19. Fed Pract. 2023;40(suppl 5):S23-S28. doi:10.12788/fp.0416

12. Caroff K, Davey V, Smyth M, et al. VA lessons from partnering in COVID-19 clinical trials. Fed Pract. 2023;40(suppl 5): S18-S22. doi:10.12788/fp.0415

13. Condon DL, Beck D, Kenworthy-Heinige T, et al. A cross-cutting approach to enhancing clinical trial site success: the Department of Veterans Affairs’ network of dedicated enrollment sites (NODES) model. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;6:78-84. Published 2017 Mar 29. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2017.03.006

14. McClure J, Asghar A, Krajec A, et al. Clinical trial facilitators: a novel approach to support the execution of clinical research at the study site level. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2023;33:101106. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101106

15. Joyner M. Expanded access to convalescent plasma for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04338360. April 8, 2020. Updated September 2, 2020. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04338360

16. Joyner MJ, Wright RS, Fairweather D, et al. Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(9):4791-4797. doi:10.1172/JCI140200

17. Lee JS, Smith NL. Epidemiology, immunology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 (EPIC3). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05764083. March 10, 2023. Updated August 1, 2023. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05764083

18. Iaquinto J, Ripley B, Dorn PA. How VA innovative partnerships and health care system can respond to national needs: NOSE trial example. Fed Pract. 2023;40(suppl 5):S52-S56. doi:10.12788/fp.0418

19. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Health Services Research & Development research career development program. Updated March 4, 2021. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://hsrd.research.va.gov/cdp/

References

1. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Functional organization manual: description of organization, structure, missions, functions, tasks, and authorities. Version 6. 2020. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.va.gov/VA-Functional-Organization-Manual-2020-4.pdf

2. Kilbourne AM, Schmidt J, Edmunds M, Vega R, Bowersox N, Atkins D. How the VA is training the next-generation workforce for learning health systems. Learn Health Syst. 2022;6(4):e10333. Published 2022 Aug 16. doi:10.1002/lrh2.10333

3. O’Leary TJ, Dominitz JA, Chang KM. Veterans Affairs office of research and development: research programs and emerging opportunities in digestive diseases research. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(7):1652-1661. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.021

4. Tucker WB. The evolution of the cooperative studies in the chemotherapy of tuberculosis of the Veterans Administration and armed forces of the U.S.A. An account of the evolving education of the physician in clinical pharmacology. Bibl Tuberc. 1960;15:1-68.

5. Hays MT; Veterans Health Administration. A historical look at the establishment of the Department of Veterans Affairs research & development program. https://www.research.va.gov/pubs/docs/ORD-85yrHistory.pdf

6. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) response report – annex a. May 10, 2021. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.va.gov/health/docs/VHA-COVID-19-Response-2021.pdf

7. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. ORD Research Response to COVID-19. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Updated March 24, 2020. Accessed September 11, 2023. www.research.va.gov/programs/orppe/education/webinars/orppe-031920.cfm

8. Burnaska DR, Huang GD, O’Leary TJ. Clinical trials proposed for the VA cooperative studies program: success rates and factors impacting approval. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2021;23:100811. Published 2021 Jul 9. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100811

9. US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA CoronavirUs Research & Efficacy Studies (VA CURES). Updated January 6, 2022. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.research.va.gov/services/csrd/va_cures/default.cfm

10. Oxman MN, Levin MJ, Johnson GR, et al. A vaccine to prevent herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(22):2271-2284. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa051016

11. Whitbourne SB, Moser J, Cho K, et al. Leveraging the Million Veteran Program infrastructure and data for a rapid research response to COVID-19. Fed Pract. 2023;40(suppl 5):S23-S28. doi:10.12788/fp.0416

12. Caroff K, Davey V, Smyth M, et al. VA lessons from partnering in COVID-19 clinical trials. Fed Pract. 2023;40(suppl 5): S18-S22. doi:10.12788/fp.0415

13. Condon DL, Beck D, Kenworthy-Heinige T, et al. A cross-cutting approach to enhancing clinical trial site success: the Department of Veterans Affairs’ network of dedicated enrollment sites (NODES) model. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;6:78-84. Published 2017 Mar 29. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2017.03.006

14. McClure J, Asghar A, Krajec A, et al. Clinical trial facilitators: a novel approach to support the execution of clinical research at the study site level. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2023;33:101106. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101106

15. Joyner M. Expanded access to convalescent plasma for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04338360. April 8, 2020. Updated September 2, 2020. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04338360

16. Joyner MJ, Wright RS, Fairweather D, et al. Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(9):4791-4797. doi:10.1172/JCI140200

17. Lee JS, Smith NL. Epidemiology, immunology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 (EPIC3). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05764083. March 10, 2023. Updated August 1, 2023. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05764083

18. Iaquinto J, Ripley B, Dorn PA. How VA innovative partnerships and health care system can respond to national needs: NOSE trial example. Fed Pract. 2023;40(suppl 5):S52-S56. doi:10.12788/fp.0418

19. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Health Services Research & Development research career development program. Updated March 4, 2021. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://hsrd.research.va.gov/cdp/

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(5)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(5)s
Page Number
S12
Page Number
S12
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Introduction

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/31/2023 - 15:57

Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Like the flip of a light switch, the world in March 2020 went into lockdown. Suddenly the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was ever-present and everywhere. At a time when very little was certain, scientific inquiry—along with its related skills and disciplines—offered a much-needed pathway for navigating the virus’s myriad unknowns.

From the pandemic’s onset, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) made singular contributions to the advancement and acceleration of national and international research activity. This special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates how the VHA, through its Office of Research and Development (ORD), took advantage of its newly deployed enterprise strategy to meet the unprecedented demands of this public health emergency.

Launched in 2017, the ORD enterprise strategy enabled the VHA not only to capitalize on existing collaborations—both internal and external—but also move swiftly in forging new ones. Additionally, the strategy was key to leveraging unique VHA assets as the nation’s largest integrated health care system, including: (1) nationwide clinical trials infrastructure, including its longstanding Cooperative Studies Program; (2) a tightly integrated system of clinical care and research that serves as a ready platform for big data science, the world’s largest genomic database, and emergent capabilities; and (3) an established innovation ecosystem that worked with VA research to address rapidly changing circumstances.

In The VA Research Enterprise (p. S12), Garcia and colleagues demonstrate how the VHA pandemic response “arose from an enterprise strategy that was already in motion and aimed at identifying needs for supporting the clinical care mission, more rapidly leveraging resources, and coordinating research across the national VA health care system.” Thus, the VHA took a “model for a culture of cooperative research within the VA and with external groups” and translated it beyond the scope of clinical trials, which had been its foundation.

Led by Chief Research and Development Officer Rachel Ramoni, DMD, ScD, this strategy forged 121 VA medical centers conducting research into an integrated enterprise that could respond to needs for scientific evidence in a coordinated fashion, thereby translating research into practice for real impact on veterans. This approach built on relationships with not only scientific communities but also clinical and operational partners working within the VA to address the immediate pandemic-related needs.

In tandem with its physical infrastructure, the VA’s longstanding network of collaborators, physical infrastructure, and ability to develop new partnerships became drivers of success. Because of previous, ongoing, multisite clinical trials and observational studies, the VA had already partnered with numerous federal government agencies and industry groups and was able to quickly set up a VA COVID-19 clinical trial master protocol framework called the CURES (VA Coronavirus Research and Efficacy studies) network. The ORD enterprise strategy is noted by several other authors, including Caroff and colleagues, who show how the VA efforts to broaden partnerships prepandemic were critical to its participation in 7 large-scale COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine trials (p. S18).

Similarly, in discussing the VA Million Veteran Program (MVP), Whitbourne and colleagues (p. S23) demonstrate how the VA research strategy and infrastructure were key to leveraging “unique MVP and VA electronic health record data to drive rapid scientific discovery and inform clinical operations.”

Launched in 2011, the MVP is one of the world’s largest genomic cohorts, with more than 985,000 veterans enrolled. MVP developers had the prescience to foresee how a robust genomic database could inform public health emergencies. Whitbourne and colleagues show the many ways the MVP facilitated the VHA COVID-19 response. By extending the MVP centralized recruitment and enrollment infrastructure, an ORD COVID-19 volunteer registry successfully registered 50,000 veterans interested in volunteering for clinical trials.

This tight integration between research and clinical care is one of the VHA’s greatest assets as a health care system. More than 60% of VA researchers are also clinicians who provide direct patient care. This enables VA physician-researchers to learn directly from veteran patients and quickly translate new findings into improved care. It also supported numerous capabilities that played a key role during the pandemic.

For example, in the article VA Big Data Science (p. S39), Young-Xu and colleagues note that the VA use of health care data proved medical research could be performed “quickly and judiciously.” Foundational to this research was a data sharing framework, electronic health record, and VA Corporate Data Warehouse that were accessible to all VA researchers. Researchers had access to clinical data and patient health records that allowed them to perform targeted, time-sensitive research. By building a cohort of 1,363,180 veterans who received ≥ 1 vaccine dose by March 7, 2021, VA researchers added significantly to our understanding of the real-world COVID-19 vaccine clinical performance.

In addition to leveraging existing capabilities, VHA clinicians and researchers created new ones in response. Krishnan and colleagues discuss the launch of 2 clinical and research consortiums focused on COVID-19 genomic surveillance (p. S44). SeqFORCE positioned the VHA to rapidly detect emergent variants and better inform the care of patients with COVID-19. SeqCURE focused on the broader study and trends of variants through sequencing.

The tightly integrated nature of VA care also supported the creation of a large-scale biorepository of specimens with accompanying clinical data to advance research and improve diagnostic and therapeutic research. Epstein and colleagues share the developmental history of the VA SHIELD biorepository, its structure, and its current and future contributions to research science (p. S48).

Finally, the same forward-learning culture which gave rise to the ORD enterprise strategy also resulted in an innovation ecosystem that was well established prior to March 2020. Now a firmly established portfolio within the VHA Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning (OHIL), the VHA Innovation Ecosystem engages frontline clinicians in reimagining veteran health care. Iaquinto and colleagues discuss how the ecosystem’s preexisting partnerships were critical to addressing shortages in personal protective equipment and other vital resources (p. S52). The OHIL provided the quality system and manufacturing oversight and delivery of swabs for testing, while the ORD furnished research infrastructure and human subjects oversight. Together, these offices not only addressed the shortage by producing swabs but also validated the swabs’ safety and efficacy in the clinical setting.

The articles in this special issue chronicle how the VA quickly mobilized its considerable enterprise-wide resources—especially during the pandemic’s acute phases—to contribute to timely veteran, national, and global evidence about what interventions were effective, what factors were associated with better care and outcomes, and how to flip the switch back to a nonemergency response. As Emerson might have observed, the scientific value of these recent “bad times” did not go unnoticed by VHA learners. In addition to catalyzing opportunities that accelerated the VHA enterprise strategy, the pandemic strengthened existing partnerships, led to new ones, and yielded lessons learned. With variants of the virus continuing to circulate, the VHA continues to harness the lessons learned from the emergency response perspective of the pandemic in order to effectively meet and exceed our mission to serve veterans.

The 35 authors whose work is featured in this issue—and their 3665 colleagues across the VHA research enterprise—offer testament not only to the power of scientific inquiry but of dedication to the mission by the individuals whose lives and families were also impacted by the pandemic.

VA Research continues working to unravel the ongoing impact of COVID-19. As the nation observes an increase in cases again, the VA is ready and well positioned to help lead and address needs for this and other public health crises.

Acknowledgments

This special issue is dedicated to Mitchell (Mitch) Mirkin and his enduring legacy at VA Research, helping to make the contributions of VA Research known as broadly as possible. A superb writer and “editor’s editor,” Mitch had an outstanding ability to translate complex scientific findings into layman’s terms. From the start of the pandemic to his unexpected passing in 2022, Mitch was Acting Director of VA Research Communications. He was a key member of the VA Office of Research and Development COVID-19 research response team. His contributions included his work leading to the generation of this Issue.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Louise Arnheim, MPAa; Grant D. Huang, MPH, PhDb; Amanda P. Garcia, MPHb; Rachel B. Ramoni, DMD, ScDb;  Carolyn M. Clancy, MDa

Correspondence:  Louise Arnheim  ([email protected])

Author affiliations

aOffice of Discovery, Education and Affiliate Networks, Department of Veterans Affairs,

bOffice of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(5)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S9
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Louise Arnheim, MPAa; Grant D. Huang, MPH, PhDb; Amanda P. Garcia, MPHb; Rachel B. Ramoni, DMD, ScDb;  Carolyn M. Clancy, MDa

Correspondence:  Louise Arnheim  ([email protected])

Author affiliations

aOffice of Discovery, Education and Affiliate Networks, Department of Veterans Affairs,

bOffice of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies.

Author and Disclosure Information

Louise Arnheim, MPAa; Grant D. Huang, MPH, PhDb; Amanda P. Garcia, MPHb; Rachel B. Ramoni, DMD, ScDb;  Carolyn M. Clancy, MDa

Correspondence:  Louise Arnheim  ([email protected])

Author affiliations

aOffice of Discovery, Education and Affiliate Networks, Department of Veterans Affairs,

bOffice of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Like the flip of a light switch, the world in March 2020 went into lockdown. Suddenly the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was ever-present and everywhere. At a time when very little was certain, scientific inquiry—along with its related skills and disciplines—offered a much-needed pathway for navigating the virus’s myriad unknowns.

From the pandemic’s onset, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) made singular contributions to the advancement and acceleration of national and international research activity. This special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates how the VHA, through its Office of Research and Development (ORD), took advantage of its newly deployed enterprise strategy to meet the unprecedented demands of this public health emergency.

Launched in 2017, the ORD enterprise strategy enabled the VHA not only to capitalize on existing collaborations—both internal and external—but also move swiftly in forging new ones. Additionally, the strategy was key to leveraging unique VHA assets as the nation’s largest integrated health care system, including: (1) nationwide clinical trials infrastructure, including its longstanding Cooperative Studies Program; (2) a tightly integrated system of clinical care and research that serves as a ready platform for big data science, the world’s largest genomic database, and emergent capabilities; and (3) an established innovation ecosystem that worked with VA research to address rapidly changing circumstances.

In The VA Research Enterprise (p. S12), Garcia and colleagues demonstrate how the VHA pandemic response “arose from an enterprise strategy that was already in motion and aimed at identifying needs for supporting the clinical care mission, more rapidly leveraging resources, and coordinating research across the national VA health care system.” Thus, the VHA took a “model for a culture of cooperative research within the VA and with external groups” and translated it beyond the scope of clinical trials, which had been its foundation.

Led by Chief Research and Development Officer Rachel Ramoni, DMD, ScD, this strategy forged 121 VA medical centers conducting research into an integrated enterprise that could respond to needs for scientific evidence in a coordinated fashion, thereby translating research into practice for real impact on veterans. This approach built on relationships with not only scientific communities but also clinical and operational partners working within the VA to address the immediate pandemic-related needs.

In tandem with its physical infrastructure, the VA’s longstanding network of collaborators, physical infrastructure, and ability to develop new partnerships became drivers of success. Because of previous, ongoing, multisite clinical trials and observational studies, the VA had already partnered with numerous federal government agencies and industry groups and was able to quickly set up a VA COVID-19 clinical trial master protocol framework called the CURES (VA Coronavirus Research and Efficacy studies) network. The ORD enterprise strategy is noted by several other authors, including Caroff and colleagues, who show how the VA efforts to broaden partnerships prepandemic were critical to its participation in 7 large-scale COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine trials (p. S18).

Similarly, in discussing the VA Million Veteran Program (MVP), Whitbourne and colleagues (p. S23) demonstrate how the VA research strategy and infrastructure were key to leveraging “unique MVP and VA electronic health record data to drive rapid scientific discovery and inform clinical operations.”

Launched in 2011, the MVP is one of the world’s largest genomic cohorts, with more than 985,000 veterans enrolled. MVP developers had the prescience to foresee how a robust genomic database could inform public health emergencies. Whitbourne and colleagues show the many ways the MVP facilitated the VHA COVID-19 response. By extending the MVP centralized recruitment and enrollment infrastructure, an ORD COVID-19 volunteer registry successfully registered 50,000 veterans interested in volunteering for clinical trials.

This tight integration between research and clinical care is one of the VHA’s greatest assets as a health care system. More than 60% of VA researchers are also clinicians who provide direct patient care. This enables VA physician-researchers to learn directly from veteran patients and quickly translate new findings into improved care. It also supported numerous capabilities that played a key role during the pandemic.

For example, in the article VA Big Data Science (p. S39), Young-Xu and colleagues note that the VA use of health care data proved medical research could be performed “quickly and judiciously.” Foundational to this research was a data sharing framework, electronic health record, and VA Corporate Data Warehouse that were accessible to all VA researchers. Researchers had access to clinical data and patient health records that allowed them to perform targeted, time-sensitive research. By building a cohort of 1,363,180 veterans who received ≥ 1 vaccine dose by March 7, 2021, VA researchers added significantly to our understanding of the real-world COVID-19 vaccine clinical performance.

In addition to leveraging existing capabilities, VHA clinicians and researchers created new ones in response. Krishnan and colleagues discuss the launch of 2 clinical and research consortiums focused on COVID-19 genomic surveillance (p. S44). SeqFORCE positioned the VHA to rapidly detect emergent variants and better inform the care of patients with COVID-19. SeqCURE focused on the broader study and trends of variants through sequencing.

The tightly integrated nature of VA care also supported the creation of a large-scale biorepository of specimens with accompanying clinical data to advance research and improve diagnostic and therapeutic research. Epstein and colleagues share the developmental history of the VA SHIELD biorepository, its structure, and its current and future contributions to research science (p. S48).

Finally, the same forward-learning culture which gave rise to the ORD enterprise strategy also resulted in an innovation ecosystem that was well established prior to March 2020. Now a firmly established portfolio within the VHA Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning (OHIL), the VHA Innovation Ecosystem engages frontline clinicians in reimagining veteran health care. Iaquinto and colleagues discuss how the ecosystem’s preexisting partnerships were critical to addressing shortages in personal protective equipment and other vital resources (p. S52). The OHIL provided the quality system and manufacturing oversight and delivery of swabs for testing, while the ORD furnished research infrastructure and human subjects oversight. Together, these offices not only addressed the shortage by producing swabs but also validated the swabs’ safety and efficacy in the clinical setting.

The articles in this special issue chronicle how the VA quickly mobilized its considerable enterprise-wide resources—especially during the pandemic’s acute phases—to contribute to timely veteran, national, and global evidence about what interventions were effective, what factors were associated with better care and outcomes, and how to flip the switch back to a nonemergency response. As Emerson might have observed, the scientific value of these recent “bad times” did not go unnoticed by VHA learners. In addition to catalyzing opportunities that accelerated the VHA enterprise strategy, the pandemic strengthened existing partnerships, led to new ones, and yielded lessons learned. With variants of the virus continuing to circulate, the VHA continues to harness the lessons learned from the emergency response perspective of the pandemic in order to effectively meet and exceed our mission to serve veterans.

The 35 authors whose work is featured in this issue—and their 3665 colleagues across the VHA research enterprise—offer testament not only to the power of scientific inquiry but of dedication to the mission by the individuals whose lives and families were also impacted by the pandemic.

VA Research continues working to unravel the ongoing impact of COVID-19. As the nation observes an increase in cases again, the VA is ready and well positioned to help lead and address needs for this and other public health crises.

Acknowledgments

This special issue is dedicated to Mitchell (Mitch) Mirkin and his enduring legacy at VA Research, helping to make the contributions of VA Research known as broadly as possible. A superb writer and “editor’s editor,” Mitch had an outstanding ability to translate complex scientific findings into layman’s terms. From the start of the pandemic to his unexpected passing in 2022, Mitch was Acting Director of VA Research Communications. He was a key member of the VA Office of Research and Development COVID-19 research response team. His contributions included his work leading to the generation of this Issue.

Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Like the flip of a light switch, the world in March 2020 went into lockdown. Suddenly the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was ever-present and everywhere. At a time when very little was certain, scientific inquiry—along with its related skills and disciplines—offered a much-needed pathway for navigating the virus’s myriad unknowns.

From the pandemic’s onset, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) made singular contributions to the advancement and acceleration of national and international research activity. This special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates how the VHA, through its Office of Research and Development (ORD), took advantage of its newly deployed enterprise strategy to meet the unprecedented demands of this public health emergency.

Launched in 2017, the ORD enterprise strategy enabled the VHA not only to capitalize on existing collaborations—both internal and external—but also move swiftly in forging new ones. Additionally, the strategy was key to leveraging unique VHA assets as the nation’s largest integrated health care system, including: (1) nationwide clinical trials infrastructure, including its longstanding Cooperative Studies Program; (2) a tightly integrated system of clinical care and research that serves as a ready platform for big data science, the world’s largest genomic database, and emergent capabilities; and (3) an established innovation ecosystem that worked with VA research to address rapidly changing circumstances.

In The VA Research Enterprise (p. S12), Garcia and colleagues demonstrate how the VHA pandemic response “arose from an enterprise strategy that was already in motion and aimed at identifying needs for supporting the clinical care mission, more rapidly leveraging resources, and coordinating research across the national VA health care system.” Thus, the VHA took a “model for a culture of cooperative research within the VA and with external groups” and translated it beyond the scope of clinical trials, which had been its foundation.

Led by Chief Research and Development Officer Rachel Ramoni, DMD, ScD, this strategy forged 121 VA medical centers conducting research into an integrated enterprise that could respond to needs for scientific evidence in a coordinated fashion, thereby translating research into practice for real impact on veterans. This approach built on relationships with not only scientific communities but also clinical and operational partners working within the VA to address the immediate pandemic-related needs.

In tandem with its physical infrastructure, the VA’s longstanding network of collaborators, physical infrastructure, and ability to develop new partnerships became drivers of success. Because of previous, ongoing, multisite clinical trials and observational studies, the VA had already partnered with numerous federal government agencies and industry groups and was able to quickly set up a VA COVID-19 clinical trial master protocol framework called the CURES (VA Coronavirus Research and Efficacy studies) network. The ORD enterprise strategy is noted by several other authors, including Caroff and colleagues, who show how the VA efforts to broaden partnerships prepandemic were critical to its participation in 7 large-scale COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine trials (p. S18).

Similarly, in discussing the VA Million Veteran Program (MVP), Whitbourne and colleagues (p. S23) demonstrate how the VA research strategy and infrastructure were key to leveraging “unique MVP and VA electronic health record data to drive rapid scientific discovery and inform clinical operations.”

Launched in 2011, the MVP is one of the world’s largest genomic cohorts, with more than 985,000 veterans enrolled. MVP developers had the prescience to foresee how a robust genomic database could inform public health emergencies. Whitbourne and colleagues show the many ways the MVP facilitated the VHA COVID-19 response. By extending the MVP centralized recruitment and enrollment infrastructure, an ORD COVID-19 volunteer registry successfully registered 50,000 veterans interested in volunteering for clinical trials.

This tight integration between research and clinical care is one of the VHA’s greatest assets as a health care system. More than 60% of VA researchers are also clinicians who provide direct patient care. This enables VA physician-researchers to learn directly from veteran patients and quickly translate new findings into improved care. It also supported numerous capabilities that played a key role during the pandemic.

For example, in the article VA Big Data Science (p. S39), Young-Xu and colleagues note that the VA use of health care data proved medical research could be performed “quickly and judiciously.” Foundational to this research was a data sharing framework, electronic health record, and VA Corporate Data Warehouse that were accessible to all VA researchers. Researchers had access to clinical data and patient health records that allowed them to perform targeted, time-sensitive research. By building a cohort of 1,363,180 veterans who received ≥ 1 vaccine dose by March 7, 2021, VA researchers added significantly to our understanding of the real-world COVID-19 vaccine clinical performance.

In addition to leveraging existing capabilities, VHA clinicians and researchers created new ones in response. Krishnan and colleagues discuss the launch of 2 clinical and research consortiums focused on COVID-19 genomic surveillance (p. S44). SeqFORCE positioned the VHA to rapidly detect emergent variants and better inform the care of patients with COVID-19. SeqCURE focused on the broader study and trends of variants through sequencing.

The tightly integrated nature of VA care also supported the creation of a large-scale biorepository of specimens with accompanying clinical data to advance research and improve diagnostic and therapeutic research. Epstein and colleagues share the developmental history of the VA SHIELD biorepository, its structure, and its current and future contributions to research science (p. S48).

Finally, the same forward-learning culture which gave rise to the ORD enterprise strategy also resulted in an innovation ecosystem that was well established prior to March 2020. Now a firmly established portfolio within the VHA Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning (OHIL), the VHA Innovation Ecosystem engages frontline clinicians in reimagining veteran health care. Iaquinto and colleagues discuss how the ecosystem’s preexisting partnerships were critical to addressing shortages in personal protective equipment and other vital resources (p. S52). The OHIL provided the quality system and manufacturing oversight and delivery of swabs for testing, while the ORD furnished research infrastructure and human subjects oversight. Together, these offices not only addressed the shortage by producing swabs but also validated the swabs’ safety and efficacy in the clinical setting.

The articles in this special issue chronicle how the VA quickly mobilized its considerable enterprise-wide resources—especially during the pandemic’s acute phases—to contribute to timely veteran, national, and global evidence about what interventions were effective, what factors were associated with better care and outcomes, and how to flip the switch back to a nonemergency response. As Emerson might have observed, the scientific value of these recent “bad times” did not go unnoticed by VHA learners. In addition to catalyzing opportunities that accelerated the VHA enterprise strategy, the pandemic strengthened existing partnerships, led to new ones, and yielded lessons learned. With variants of the virus continuing to circulate, the VHA continues to harness the lessons learned from the emergency response perspective of the pandemic in order to effectively meet and exceed our mission to serve veterans.

The 35 authors whose work is featured in this issue—and their 3665 colleagues across the VHA research enterprise—offer testament not only to the power of scientific inquiry but of dedication to the mission by the individuals whose lives and families were also impacted by the pandemic.

VA Research continues working to unravel the ongoing impact of COVID-19. As the nation observes an increase in cases again, the VA is ready and well positioned to help lead and address needs for this and other public health crises.

Acknowledgments

This special issue is dedicated to Mitchell (Mitch) Mirkin and his enduring legacy at VA Research, helping to make the contributions of VA Research known as broadly as possible. A superb writer and “editor’s editor,” Mitch had an outstanding ability to translate complex scientific findings into layman’s terms. From the start of the pandemic to his unexpected passing in 2022, Mitch was Acting Director of VA Research Communications. He was a key member of the VA Office of Research and Development COVID-19 research response team. His contributions included his work leading to the generation of this Issue.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(5)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(5)s
Page Number
S9
Page Number
S9
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Foreword: VA Research and COVID-19

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 11/21/2023 - 09:10

Sylvester Norman, a 67-year-old Coast Guard veteran and retired day-care worker from Nashville, Tennessee, volunteered to participate in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veteran Program (MVP). He and all 4 of his brothers had experienced kidney illness. During the pandemic, Adriana Hung, MD, MPH, an MVP researcher and associate professor of nephrology at Vanderbilt University, noticed that a disproportionate number of Black patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were dying of acute kidney failure. Dr. Hung used data from Norman and other Black veterans provided through the MVP to identify genetic variations in the APOL1 gene linked to kidney disease found in 1 of every 8 people of African descent. Her research proved that a COVID-19 viral infection can trigger these genes and drive a patient’s kidneys to go into failure. Thanks to her research and volunteers like Norman, a new drug targeting APOL1 may soon receive approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This is only one example of the life-saving work conducted by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during the pandemic. On January 21, 2020, 1 day after the first confirmed COVID-19 case in the US, the VHA quickly activated its Emergency Management Coordination Cell (EMCC) under a unified command structure with round-the-clock operations to track the evolving risk and plan a response to this once-in-a-century pandemic. A few months later, and before the US declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the VHA research program sprang into action, preparing its community of investigators to address the emerging needs and challenges of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Three years later, although the federal COVID-19 public emergency is declared over, the VHA remains diligent in observing trends and conducting necessary research on the disease as case numbers rise and fall across time.

This special issue of Federal Practitioner showcases the many ways that the VHA successfully leveraged and rapidly mobilized its research enterprise capabilities as part of the national response to COVID-19 and continues to work in this area. As the virus rapidly spread across the country, the VHA research program, overseen by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and in partnership with other VHA offices, demonstrated the strength and agility that come from being part of a nationwide integrated health care system.

Historically, the VHA has been one of the nation’s leaders in translating medical breakthroughs to the treatment and care of veterans and the nation. Today, the VHA ensures that veterans have increased access to innovative health care solutions by promoting new medical research initiatives, training health care professionals, and developing community partnerships.

As this special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates, the VHA’s extraordinary research response to the COVID-19 pandemic was shaped by its ongoing transformation to a full-scale research enterprise; diversity of partnerships with academia, other federal agencies, and industry; extensive infrastructure for funding and quickly ramping up multisite clinical trials; and longstanding partnership with veterans, who volunteer to serve their country twice—first in uniform, and later by volunteering to participate in VA research.

By leveraging these and other assets, VHA investigators have conducted > 900 COVID-19 research projects across 83 VA medical centers, with nearly 3000 VA-affiliated papers published by mid-2023. We have also become a leader in long COVID, generating notable findings using our electronic health record data and filling in the picture with studies that include interviews with thousands of patients, examinations of blood markers, and exploration of the role of genetics. Along the way, the VA collaborated with federal partners, such as the US Department of Defense, by funding a longitudinal research cohort in which 2800 veterans are enrolled. Through this joint effort, researchers will learn more about the natural history and outcomes among veterans affected by COVID-19. This work continues as part of the VA commitment to the health and care of these veterans and nation as a whole.

Additionally, by partnering with veterans, the VA established a research volunteer registry. More than 58,000 veterans volunteered to be contacted to participate in studies if they were eligible. This effort was critical to the VA’s ability to contribute to the vaccine and other therapeutic trials that were seeking approval from the FDA for broader public use. This volunteerism by these veterans showed the nation that the VA is a valuable partner in times of need.

The VA research program remains tightly focused on understanding the long-term impacts of COVID-19. At the same time, the VA is committed to using lessons learned during the crisis in addressing high priorities in veterans’ health care. Among those priorities is fulfilling our mission under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 to improve care for veterans with military environmental exposures. Over the next few years, VA researchers will analyze health care and epidemiologic data to improve the identification and treatment of medical conditions potentially associated with toxic exposures. This work will include analyses of health trends of post-9/11 veterans, cancer rates among veterans, toxic exposure and mental health outcomes, and the health effects of jet fuels.

Our research program also will support the VA priority of hiring faster and more competitively. With many of the 3700 VA-funded principal investigators also serving as faculty at top universities, VA research programs position us to recruit the best and brightest professionals on the cutting edge of health care. These efforts work hand in hand with the clinical training the VA provides to 113,000 health professions trainees, creating a pipeline of clinicians and physician-researchers for the future. Further, these partnerships strengthen the VA’s ability to expand access by connecting veterans to the best, immediate care.

Finally, VA research will continue to be critical to our top clinical priority of preventing veteran suicide. This area of VA research covers a wide and critically important set of topics, such as the use of predictive modeling to determine veterans most at risk as well as studies on substance use disorders and suicidal ideation, among others.

The impressive collection of articles in this special issue provides a snapshot of the large-scale, all-hands approach the VHA adopted during the COVID-19 public health crisis. I am extremely proud of the work you are about to read.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA, VHA Under Secretary for Health

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(5)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S8
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA, VHA Under Secretary for Health

Author and Disclosure Information

Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA, VHA Under Secretary for Health

Article PDF
Article PDF

Sylvester Norman, a 67-year-old Coast Guard veteran and retired day-care worker from Nashville, Tennessee, volunteered to participate in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veteran Program (MVP). He and all 4 of his brothers had experienced kidney illness. During the pandemic, Adriana Hung, MD, MPH, an MVP researcher and associate professor of nephrology at Vanderbilt University, noticed that a disproportionate number of Black patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were dying of acute kidney failure. Dr. Hung used data from Norman and other Black veterans provided through the MVP to identify genetic variations in the APOL1 gene linked to kidney disease found in 1 of every 8 people of African descent. Her research proved that a COVID-19 viral infection can trigger these genes and drive a patient’s kidneys to go into failure. Thanks to her research and volunteers like Norman, a new drug targeting APOL1 may soon receive approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This is only one example of the life-saving work conducted by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during the pandemic. On January 21, 2020, 1 day after the first confirmed COVID-19 case in the US, the VHA quickly activated its Emergency Management Coordination Cell (EMCC) under a unified command structure with round-the-clock operations to track the evolving risk and plan a response to this once-in-a-century pandemic. A few months later, and before the US declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the VHA research program sprang into action, preparing its community of investigators to address the emerging needs and challenges of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Three years later, although the federal COVID-19 public emergency is declared over, the VHA remains diligent in observing trends and conducting necessary research on the disease as case numbers rise and fall across time.

This special issue of Federal Practitioner showcases the many ways that the VHA successfully leveraged and rapidly mobilized its research enterprise capabilities as part of the national response to COVID-19 and continues to work in this area. As the virus rapidly spread across the country, the VHA research program, overseen by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and in partnership with other VHA offices, demonstrated the strength and agility that come from being part of a nationwide integrated health care system.

Historically, the VHA has been one of the nation’s leaders in translating medical breakthroughs to the treatment and care of veterans and the nation. Today, the VHA ensures that veterans have increased access to innovative health care solutions by promoting new medical research initiatives, training health care professionals, and developing community partnerships.

As this special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates, the VHA’s extraordinary research response to the COVID-19 pandemic was shaped by its ongoing transformation to a full-scale research enterprise; diversity of partnerships with academia, other federal agencies, and industry; extensive infrastructure for funding and quickly ramping up multisite clinical trials; and longstanding partnership with veterans, who volunteer to serve their country twice—first in uniform, and later by volunteering to participate in VA research.

By leveraging these and other assets, VHA investigators have conducted > 900 COVID-19 research projects across 83 VA medical centers, with nearly 3000 VA-affiliated papers published by mid-2023. We have also become a leader in long COVID, generating notable findings using our electronic health record data and filling in the picture with studies that include interviews with thousands of patients, examinations of blood markers, and exploration of the role of genetics. Along the way, the VA collaborated with federal partners, such as the US Department of Defense, by funding a longitudinal research cohort in which 2800 veterans are enrolled. Through this joint effort, researchers will learn more about the natural history and outcomes among veterans affected by COVID-19. This work continues as part of the VA commitment to the health and care of these veterans and nation as a whole.

Additionally, by partnering with veterans, the VA established a research volunteer registry. More than 58,000 veterans volunteered to be contacted to participate in studies if they were eligible. This effort was critical to the VA’s ability to contribute to the vaccine and other therapeutic trials that were seeking approval from the FDA for broader public use. This volunteerism by these veterans showed the nation that the VA is a valuable partner in times of need.

The VA research program remains tightly focused on understanding the long-term impacts of COVID-19. At the same time, the VA is committed to using lessons learned during the crisis in addressing high priorities in veterans’ health care. Among those priorities is fulfilling our mission under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 to improve care for veterans with military environmental exposures. Over the next few years, VA researchers will analyze health care and epidemiologic data to improve the identification and treatment of medical conditions potentially associated with toxic exposures. This work will include analyses of health trends of post-9/11 veterans, cancer rates among veterans, toxic exposure and mental health outcomes, and the health effects of jet fuels.

Our research program also will support the VA priority of hiring faster and more competitively. With many of the 3700 VA-funded principal investigators also serving as faculty at top universities, VA research programs position us to recruit the best and brightest professionals on the cutting edge of health care. These efforts work hand in hand with the clinical training the VA provides to 113,000 health professions trainees, creating a pipeline of clinicians and physician-researchers for the future. Further, these partnerships strengthen the VA’s ability to expand access by connecting veterans to the best, immediate care.

Finally, VA research will continue to be critical to our top clinical priority of preventing veteran suicide. This area of VA research covers a wide and critically important set of topics, such as the use of predictive modeling to determine veterans most at risk as well as studies on substance use disorders and suicidal ideation, among others.

The impressive collection of articles in this special issue provides a snapshot of the large-scale, all-hands approach the VHA adopted during the COVID-19 public health crisis. I am extremely proud of the work you are about to read.

Sylvester Norman, a 67-year-old Coast Guard veteran and retired day-care worker from Nashville, Tennessee, volunteered to participate in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veteran Program (MVP). He and all 4 of his brothers had experienced kidney illness. During the pandemic, Adriana Hung, MD, MPH, an MVP researcher and associate professor of nephrology at Vanderbilt University, noticed that a disproportionate number of Black patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were dying of acute kidney failure. Dr. Hung used data from Norman and other Black veterans provided through the MVP to identify genetic variations in the APOL1 gene linked to kidney disease found in 1 of every 8 people of African descent. Her research proved that a COVID-19 viral infection can trigger these genes and drive a patient’s kidneys to go into failure. Thanks to her research and volunteers like Norman, a new drug targeting APOL1 may soon receive approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This is only one example of the life-saving work conducted by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during the pandemic. On January 21, 2020, 1 day after the first confirmed COVID-19 case in the US, the VHA quickly activated its Emergency Management Coordination Cell (EMCC) under a unified command structure with round-the-clock operations to track the evolving risk and plan a response to this once-in-a-century pandemic. A few months later, and before the US declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the VHA research program sprang into action, preparing its community of investigators to address the emerging needs and challenges of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Three years later, although the federal COVID-19 public emergency is declared over, the VHA remains diligent in observing trends and conducting necessary research on the disease as case numbers rise and fall across time.

This special issue of Federal Practitioner showcases the many ways that the VHA successfully leveraged and rapidly mobilized its research enterprise capabilities as part of the national response to COVID-19 and continues to work in this area. As the virus rapidly spread across the country, the VHA research program, overseen by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and in partnership with other VHA offices, demonstrated the strength and agility that come from being part of a nationwide integrated health care system.

Historically, the VHA has been one of the nation’s leaders in translating medical breakthroughs to the treatment and care of veterans and the nation. Today, the VHA ensures that veterans have increased access to innovative health care solutions by promoting new medical research initiatives, training health care professionals, and developing community partnerships.

As this special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates, the VHA’s extraordinary research response to the COVID-19 pandemic was shaped by its ongoing transformation to a full-scale research enterprise; diversity of partnerships with academia, other federal agencies, and industry; extensive infrastructure for funding and quickly ramping up multisite clinical trials; and longstanding partnership with veterans, who volunteer to serve their country twice—first in uniform, and later by volunteering to participate in VA research.

By leveraging these and other assets, VHA investigators have conducted > 900 COVID-19 research projects across 83 VA medical centers, with nearly 3000 VA-affiliated papers published by mid-2023. We have also become a leader in long COVID, generating notable findings using our electronic health record data and filling in the picture with studies that include interviews with thousands of patients, examinations of blood markers, and exploration of the role of genetics. Along the way, the VA collaborated with federal partners, such as the US Department of Defense, by funding a longitudinal research cohort in which 2800 veterans are enrolled. Through this joint effort, researchers will learn more about the natural history and outcomes among veterans affected by COVID-19. This work continues as part of the VA commitment to the health and care of these veterans and nation as a whole.

Additionally, by partnering with veterans, the VA established a research volunteer registry. More than 58,000 veterans volunteered to be contacted to participate in studies if they were eligible. This effort was critical to the VA’s ability to contribute to the vaccine and other therapeutic trials that were seeking approval from the FDA for broader public use. This volunteerism by these veterans showed the nation that the VA is a valuable partner in times of need.

The VA research program remains tightly focused on understanding the long-term impacts of COVID-19. At the same time, the VA is committed to using lessons learned during the crisis in addressing high priorities in veterans’ health care. Among those priorities is fulfilling our mission under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 to improve care for veterans with military environmental exposures. Over the next few years, VA researchers will analyze health care and epidemiologic data to improve the identification and treatment of medical conditions potentially associated with toxic exposures. This work will include analyses of health trends of post-9/11 veterans, cancer rates among veterans, toxic exposure and mental health outcomes, and the health effects of jet fuels.

Our research program also will support the VA priority of hiring faster and more competitively. With many of the 3700 VA-funded principal investigators also serving as faculty at top universities, VA research programs position us to recruit the best and brightest professionals on the cutting edge of health care. These efforts work hand in hand with the clinical training the VA provides to 113,000 health professions trainees, creating a pipeline of clinicians and physician-researchers for the future. Further, these partnerships strengthen the VA’s ability to expand access by connecting veterans to the best, immediate care.

Finally, VA research will continue to be critical to our top clinical priority of preventing veteran suicide. This area of VA research covers a wide and critically important set of topics, such as the use of predictive modeling to determine veterans most at risk as well as studies on substance use disorders and suicidal ideation, among others.

The impressive collection of articles in this special issue provides a snapshot of the large-scale, all-hands approach the VHA adopted during the COVID-19 public health crisis. I am extremely proud of the work you are about to read.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(5)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(5)s
Page Number
S8
Page Number
S8
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Foreword
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or both? The debate in NSCLC rages on

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/31/2023 - 15:24

– Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.

Though immunotherapy is beneficial in resectable NSCLC, “we actually don’t know how much of the effect [is due to] the adjuvant and how much to the neoadjuvant therapy,” said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.

Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.

Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.

In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).

Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.

Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.

The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.

Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.

The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?

The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.

Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.

The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?

Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.

For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.

“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.

Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.

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

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

– Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.

Though immunotherapy is beneficial in resectable NSCLC, “we actually don’t know how much of the effect [is due to] the adjuvant and how much to the neoadjuvant therapy,” said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.

Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.

Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.

In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).

Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.

Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.

The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.

Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.

The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?

The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.

Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.

The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?

Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.

For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.

“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.

Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.

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

– Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.

Though immunotherapy is beneficial in resectable NSCLC, “we actually don’t know how much of the effect [is due to] the adjuvant and how much to the neoadjuvant therapy,” said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.

Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.

Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.

In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).

Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.

Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.

The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.

Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.

The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?

The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.

Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.

The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?

Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.

For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.

“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.

Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT ESMO 2023

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Two multitarget stool tests show promise for CRC screening: Studies

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 10/27/2023 - 12:19

VANCOUVER – Two multitarget stool tests in development compare favorably for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk people, suggest two new studies.

In a blinded, prospective, cross-sectional study, researchers assessed a multitarget stool RNA test (mt-sRNA; Colosense, Geneoscopy) vs. colonoscopy for detection of advanced adenomas and CRC in average-risk individuals aged 45 years and older.

In a prospective, cross-sectional study, investigators evaluated the clinical performance of a next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA; Cologuard, Exact Sciences) and fecal hemoglobin assay for CRC screening in adults aged 40 years and older.

Both studies were presented at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology 2023 Annual Scientific Meeting.
 

RNA as a biomarker

For CRC-PREVENT, which evaluated the mt-sRNA test, David Lieberman, MD, professor of medicine and former chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues recruited a diverse group of 8,289 adults undergoing colonoscopy at one of more than 3,800 endoscopy centers nationwide. Recruitment included outreach through social media, which could be used to improve future screening rates, Dr. Lieberman said.

The full study findings of CRC-PREVENT were also published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Participants provided stool samples before colonoscopy. Colosense includes a commercially available fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and tests for eight different strands of RNA. The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

The mt-sRNA test had 100% sensitivity for early, stage I cancers, which were detected in 12 patients. Advanced adenomas were detected with an overall sensitivity of 45%. When the advanced adenomas were ≥ 2 cm, sensitivity increased to 51%.

Specificity was 87% among patients with negative findings for hyperplastic polyps or lesions.

The mt-sRNA test showed significant improvements in sensitivity for CRC (94% vs. 77%; P = .029) and advanced adenomas (45% vs 29%; P < .001), when compared with the FIT results alone.

“This is the first large study to include the 45- to 49-year-old population, for whom screening is now recommended,” Dr. Lieberman told this news organization.

Results show a sensitivity of 100% for detecting CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas in this younger age group. That performance is “excellent,” said Dr. Lieberman.

Results also were reliable across all ages.

“The consistent performance across all age groups for whom screening is recommended is a key finding and was totally unknown” before this study, Dr. Lieberman said.

RNA-based testing may have an advantage over DNA biomarker tests, which can be prone to age-related DNA methylation changes, he added.
 

Detection by DNA

Thomas Imperiale, MD, distinguished professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues conducted the BLUE-C trial to validate the next-generation mt-sDNA test for CRC screening.

The mt-sDNA assay tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.

Dr. Imperiale and colleagues studied 20,176 adults (mean age, 63 years) scheduled for screening colonoscopy at one of 186 U.S. sites. Participants provided a stool sample for the mt-sDNA test and comparator FIT prior to colonoscopy preparation. They compared results to colonoscopy and FIT findings.

Colonoscopy revealed 98 people with CRC, 2,144 with advanced precancerous lesions, and 17,934 with no advanced neoplasia.

Sensitivity of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval, 87.1-97.7), advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6), and advanced precancerous lesions with high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3).

Sensitivities of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC and advanced precancerous lesions were significantly higher than FIT (P < .0001).

In terms of specificity, the mt-sDNA test had a specificity of 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1-91.0) for the absence of advanced neoplasia. Specificity for non-neoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1).

The mt-sDNA test demonstrated high specificity and high CRC and advanced precancerous lesion sensitivity. The test outperformed FIT for these factors on sensitivity but not specificity, the authors noted.

Improved specificity was a goal of developing this next-generation assay. The BLUE-C trial demonstrated a 30% improvement in specificity that “will decrease the number of unnecessary colonoscopies performed for false-positive results,” said Dr. Imperiale.

“I was pleased to see the robust results support this new battery of markers,” Dr. Imperiale added. Improvements associated with this next-generation test could “help further reduce the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer.”
 

 

 

Tests to provide more noninvasive options

Both are “important studies” that look at a large, average-risk screening population in the United States, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research. “Both show high sensitivity for detecting CRC and decent specificity for advanced adenomas.”

While we will have to wait for the full publications, U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, and insurance coverage, gastroenterologists can expect to see these tests in clinical use in the near future, added Dr. Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, and lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines.

These tests provide more noninvasive options for CRC screening and are more accurate, which hopefully will translate into increased screening and a reduced burden of CRC, she said.

“We are always looking for ways to increase colon cancer screening uptake,” said Brooks Cash, MD, professor and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Texas, Houston, who also was not affiliated with the research.

Certainly, the multitarget stool DNA is not a new concept with Cologuard, but it is a new assay, Dr. Cash said.

“It’s significantly different than their previous version, and they were able to show improved sensitivity as well as specificity, which has been one of the concerns,” he said.

The multitarget stool RNA test “shows very similar results,” Dr. Cash added. “Their predicate is that it’s slightly different and actually may return very good sensitivity for older patients, where you don’t have the same methylation issues with the DNA.”

“It will be interesting to see how they play out,” he added.

“The critical part to all of these tests is that if a patient has a positive test, they need to get a colonoscopy. That doesn’t always happen,” Dr. Cash said. “We have to make sure that there’s appropriate education for not only patients but also providers, many of whom will not be gastroenterologists.”

Geneoscopy funded the CRC-PREVENT trial. Exact Sciences funded the BLUE-C trial. Dr. Lieberman is an advisor or review panel member for Geneoscopy. Dr. Imperiale receives grant or research support from Exact Sciences. Dr. Shaukat reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cash is on the advisory board for Exact Sciences.

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

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

VANCOUVER – Two multitarget stool tests in development compare favorably for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk people, suggest two new studies.

In a blinded, prospective, cross-sectional study, researchers assessed a multitarget stool RNA test (mt-sRNA; Colosense, Geneoscopy) vs. colonoscopy for detection of advanced adenomas and CRC in average-risk individuals aged 45 years and older.

In a prospective, cross-sectional study, investigators evaluated the clinical performance of a next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA; Cologuard, Exact Sciences) and fecal hemoglobin assay for CRC screening in adults aged 40 years and older.

Both studies were presented at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology 2023 Annual Scientific Meeting.
 

RNA as a biomarker

For CRC-PREVENT, which evaluated the mt-sRNA test, David Lieberman, MD, professor of medicine and former chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues recruited a diverse group of 8,289 adults undergoing colonoscopy at one of more than 3,800 endoscopy centers nationwide. Recruitment included outreach through social media, which could be used to improve future screening rates, Dr. Lieberman said.

The full study findings of CRC-PREVENT were also published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Participants provided stool samples before colonoscopy. Colosense includes a commercially available fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and tests for eight different strands of RNA. The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

The mt-sRNA test had 100% sensitivity for early, stage I cancers, which were detected in 12 patients. Advanced adenomas were detected with an overall sensitivity of 45%. When the advanced adenomas were ≥ 2 cm, sensitivity increased to 51%.

Specificity was 87% among patients with negative findings for hyperplastic polyps or lesions.

The mt-sRNA test showed significant improvements in sensitivity for CRC (94% vs. 77%; P = .029) and advanced adenomas (45% vs 29%; P < .001), when compared with the FIT results alone.

“This is the first large study to include the 45- to 49-year-old population, for whom screening is now recommended,” Dr. Lieberman told this news organization.

Results show a sensitivity of 100% for detecting CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas in this younger age group. That performance is “excellent,” said Dr. Lieberman.

Results also were reliable across all ages.

“The consistent performance across all age groups for whom screening is recommended is a key finding and was totally unknown” before this study, Dr. Lieberman said.

RNA-based testing may have an advantage over DNA biomarker tests, which can be prone to age-related DNA methylation changes, he added.
 

Detection by DNA

Thomas Imperiale, MD, distinguished professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues conducted the BLUE-C trial to validate the next-generation mt-sDNA test for CRC screening.

The mt-sDNA assay tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.

Dr. Imperiale and colleagues studied 20,176 adults (mean age, 63 years) scheduled for screening colonoscopy at one of 186 U.S. sites. Participants provided a stool sample for the mt-sDNA test and comparator FIT prior to colonoscopy preparation. They compared results to colonoscopy and FIT findings.

Colonoscopy revealed 98 people with CRC, 2,144 with advanced precancerous lesions, and 17,934 with no advanced neoplasia.

Sensitivity of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval, 87.1-97.7), advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6), and advanced precancerous lesions with high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3).

Sensitivities of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC and advanced precancerous lesions were significantly higher than FIT (P < .0001).

In terms of specificity, the mt-sDNA test had a specificity of 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1-91.0) for the absence of advanced neoplasia. Specificity for non-neoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1).

The mt-sDNA test demonstrated high specificity and high CRC and advanced precancerous lesion sensitivity. The test outperformed FIT for these factors on sensitivity but not specificity, the authors noted.

Improved specificity was a goal of developing this next-generation assay. The BLUE-C trial demonstrated a 30% improvement in specificity that “will decrease the number of unnecessary colonoscopies performed for false-positive results,” said Dr. Imperiale.

“I was pleased to see the robust results support this new battery of markers,” Dr. Imperiale added. Improvements associated with this next-generation test could “help further reduce the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer.”
 

 

 

Tests to provide more noninvasive options

Both are “important studies” that look at a large, average-risk screening population in the United States, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research. “Both show high sensitivity for detecting CRC and decent specificity for advanced adenomas.”

While we will have to wait for the full publications, U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, and insurance coverage, gastroenterologists can expect to see these tests in clinical use in the near future, added Dr. Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, and lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines.

These tests provide more noninvasive options for CRC screening and are more accurate, which hopefully will translate into increased screening and a reduced burden of CRC, she said.

“We are always looking for ways to increase colon cancer screening uptake,” said Brooks Cash, MD, professor and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Texas, Houston, who also was not affiliated with the research.

Certainly, the multitarget stool DNA is not a new concept with Cologuard, but it is a new assay, Dr. Cash said.

“It’s significantly different than their previous version, and they were able to show improved sensitivity as well as specificity, which has been one of the concerns,” he said.

The multitarget stool RNA test “shows very similar results,” Dr. Cash added. “Their predicate is that it’s slightly different and actually may return very good sensitivity for older patients, where you don’t have the same methylation issues with the DNA.”

“It will be interesting to see how they play out,” he added.

“The critical part to all of these tests is that if a patient has a positive test, they need to get a colonoscopy. That doesn’t always happen,” Dr. Cash said. “We have to make sure that there’s appropriate education for not only patients but also providers, many of whom will not be gastroenterologists.”

Geneoscopy funded the CRC-PREVENT trial. Exact Sciences funded the BLUE-C trial. Dr. Lieberman is an advisor or review panel member for Geneoscopy. Dr. Imperiale receives grant or research support from Exact Sciences. Dr. Shaukat reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cash is on the advisory board for Exact Sciences.

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

VANCOUVER – Two multitarget stool tests in development compare favorably for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk people, suggest two new studies.

In a blinded, prospective, cross-sectional study, researchers assessed a multitarget stool RNA test (mt-sRNA; Colosense, Geneoscopy) vs. colonoscopy for detection of advanced adenomas and CRC in average-risk individuals aged 45 years and older.

In a prospective, cross-sectional study, investigators evaluated the clinical performance of a next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA; Cologuard, Exact Sciences) and fecal hemoglobin assay for CRC screening in adults aged 40 years and older.

Both studies were presented at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology 2023 Annual Scientific Meeting.
 

RNA as a biomarker

For CRC-PREVENT, which evaluated the mt-sRNA test, David Lieberman, MD, professor of medicine and former chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues recruited a diverse group of 8,289 adults undergoing colonoscopy at one of more than 3,800 endoscopy centers nationwide. Recruitment included outreach through social media, which could be used to improve future screening rates, Dr. Lieberman said.

The full study findings of CRC-PREVENT were also published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Participants provided stool samples before colonoscopy. Colosense includes a commercially available fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and tests for eight different strands of RNA. The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

The mt-sRNA test had 100% sensitivity for early, stage I cancers, which were detected in 12 patients. Advanced adenomas were detected with an overall sensitivity of 45%. When the advanced adenomas were ≥ 2 cm, sensitivity increased to 51%.

Specificity was 87% among patients with negative findings for hyperplastic polyps or lesions.

The mt-sRNA test showed significant improvements in sensitivity for CRC (94% vs. 77%; P = .029) and advanced adenomas (45% vs 29%; P < .001), when compared with the FIT results alone.

“This is the first large study to include the 45- to 49-year-old population, for whom screening is now recommended,” Dr. Lieberman told this news organization.

Results show a sensitivity of 100% for detecting CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas in this younger age group. That performance is “excellent,” said Dr. Lieberman.

Results also were reliable across all ages.

“The consistent performance across all age groups for whom screening is recommended is a key finding and was totally unknown” before this study, Dr. Lieberman said.

RNA-based testing may have an advantage over DNA biomarker tests, which can be prone to age-related DNA methylation changes, he added.
 

Detection by DNA

Thomas Imperiale, MD, distinguished professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues conducted the BLUE-C trial to validate the next-generation mt-sDNA test for CRC screening.

The mt-sDNA assay tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.

Dr. Imperiale and colleagues studied 20,176 adults (mean age, 63 years) scheduled for screening colonoscopy at one of 186 U.S. sites. Participants provided a stool sample for the mt-sDNA test and comparator FIT prior to colonoscopy preparation. They compared results to colonoscopy and FIT findings.

Colonoscopy revealed 98 people with CRC, 2,144 with advanced precancerous lesions, and 17,934 with no advanced neoplasia.

Sensitivity of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval, 87.1-97.7), advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6), and advanced precancerous lesions with high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3).

Sensitivities of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC and advanced precancerous lesions were significantly higher than FIT (P < .0001).

In terms of specificity, the mt-sDNA test had a specificity of 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1-91.0) for the absence of advanced neoplasia. Specificity for non-neoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1).

The mt-sDNA test demonstrated high specificity and high CRC and advanced precancerous lesion sensitivity. The test outperformed FIT for these factors on sensitivity but not specificity, the authors noted.

Improved specificity was a goal of developing this next-generation assay. The BLUE-C trial demonstrated a 30% improvement in specificity that “will decrease the number of unnecessary colonoscopies performed for false-positive results,” said Dr. Imperiale.

“I was pleased to see the robust results support this new battery of markers,” Dr. Imperiale added. Improvements associated with this next-generation test could “help further reduce the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer.”
 

 

 

Tests to provide more noninvasive options

Both are “important studies” that look at a large, average-risk screening population in the United States, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research. “Both show high sensitivity for detecting CRC and decent specificity for advanced adenomas.”

While we will have to wait for the full publications, U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, and insurance coverage, gastroenterologists can expect to see these tests in clinical use in the near future, added Dr. Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, and lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines.

These tests provide more noninvasive options for CRC screening and are more accurate, which hopefully will translate into increased screening and a reduced burden of CRC, she said.

“We are always looking for ways to increase colon cancer screening uptake,” said Brooks Cash, MD, professor and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Texas, Houston, who also was not affiliated with the research.

Certainly, the multitarget stool DNA is not a new concept with Cologuard, but it is a new assay, Dr. Cash said.

“It’s significantly different than their previous version, and they were able to show improved sensitivity as well as specificity, which has been one of the concerns,” he said.

The multitarget stool RNA test “shows very similar results,” Dr. Cash added. “Their predicate is that it’s slightly different and actually may return very good sensitivity for older patients, where you don’t have the same methylation issues with the DNA.”

“It will be interesting to see how they play out,” he added.

“The critical part to all of these tests is that if a patient has a positive test, they need to get a colonoscopy. That doesn’t always happen,” Dr. Cash said. “We have to make sure that there’s appropriate education for not only patients but also providers, many of whom will not be gastroenterologists.”

Geneoscopy funded the CRC-PREVENT trial. Exact Sciences funded the BLUE-C trial. Dr. Lieberman is an advisor or review panel member for Geneoscopy. Dr. Imperiale receives grant or research support from Exact Sciences. Dr. Shaukat reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cash is on the advisory board for Exact Sciences.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT ACG 2023

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Rare lymphomas: Desperately seeking new txs

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 10/28/2023 - 23:30

NEW YORK – Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) make up only about 10% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, yet this disease presents a vexing problem. The majority of patients relapse, but efforts to develop new therapies are stymied by the rarity and genetic varieties of the condition.

University of Nebraska Medical Center
Dr. Julie M. Vose

“Over the past 5 years, researchers have gotten a clearer picture of the different subtypes of peripheral T-cell lymphomas, and with this knowledge we are trying to identify potential targets of new treatments. Despite some progress, the need for these new treatments is still acute, due to the disease’s many subtypes and the difficulty of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients in clinical trials,” said Julie M. Vose, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia and Myeloma Congress 2023, in New York. Before her presentation at this year’s conference, Dr. Vose was awarded the SASS-ARENA Foundation’s John Ultmann Award for Major Contributions to Lymphoma Research.

Dr. Vose noted that only one subtype of PTCL, ALK+ ALCL, responds well to frontline treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone). Patients with the ALK+ ALCL signature treated with CHOP have a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 70%-90%, but this group only makes up about 6% of PTCL cases in North America, she added.

One of the most promising breakthroughs in treatment has been the addition of the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) to chemotherapy with CHP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone), Dr. Vose said. Results from the ECHELON-2 trial indicate that CD30+ PTCL patients have improved performance with R-CHP, compared with CHOP; 5-year progression free survival (PFS) rates were 51.4% with R+CHP versus 43.0% with CHOP, and 5-year overall survival rates were 70.1% versus 61.0%, respectively.

“ALCL is one of the most prevalent PTCL subtypes and accounts for about 24% of all PTCL; the current standard-of-care for induction treatment in these patients is BV-CHP,” said Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. Dr. Ruan explained the limitation of adding BV-CHP, saying “We don’t have as effective biological targeted therapies in other subtypes of T-cell lymphoma, such as PTCL NOS [not-other specified] or angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.”

There is evidence that autologous stem cell transplant (ACST) can increase PFS and OS in newly diagnosed patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), but not in patients with other types of newly diagnosed PTCL. The estimated 2-year OS and PFS for patients with AITL who received ASCT + chemotherapy were 93.3% and 68.8 respectively versus 52.9% and 41.2 in the non-ASCT group. This news is promising, yet Dr. Vose presented statistics indicating that AITL PTCL has been estimated to account for less than 19% of PTCL cases.

Despite the improvements in PFS and OS in a few subtypes for frontline PTCL, 60% of patients with non-ALCL PTCL will relapse, and relapsed/ refractory (R/R) PTCL patients have a median PFS of 9.6 months. Several studies have shown some promise for improving outcomes in R/R PTCL patients, such as the phase-II PRIMO study of duvelisib (a dual PI3K-delta,gamma inhibitor), in which there was an overall response rate of 50% and a complete response rate of 32%. Despite these modest gains, the prognosis for most PTCL patients remains poor. Dr. Vose concluded her presentation by reiterating the need for new agents and for further research. She emphasized that studies will need to be collaborative and international to enroll sufficient patients.

Dr Ruan drew a similar conclusion, noting “We need to increase clinical, translational and basic research on a collaborative scale, so that we can advance bench-to-bedside discovery and bring new treatment to patients quickly.”

Dr. Vose disclosed research funding from Epizyme, GenMab, Kite, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Ruan disclosed clinical research trial support from BMS and Daiichi Sankyo.
 

Publications
Topics
Sections

NEW YORK – Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) make up only about 10% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, yet this disease presents a vexing problem. The majority of patients relapse, but efforts to develop new therapies are stymied by the rarity and genetic varieties of the condition.

University of Nebraska Medical Center
Dr. Julie M. Vose

“Over the past 5 years, researchers have gotten a clearer picture of the different subtypes of peripheral T-cell lymphomas, and with this knowledge we are trying to identify potential targets of new treatments. Despite some progress, the need for these new treatments is still acute, due to the disease’s many subtypes and the difficulty of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients in clinical trials,” said Julie M. Vose, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia and Myeloma Congress 2023, in New York. Before her presentation at this year’s conference, Dr. Vose was awarded the SASS-ARENA Foundation’s John Ultmann Award for Major Contributions to Lymphoma Research.

Dr. Vose noted that only one subtype of PTCL, ALK+ ALCL, responds well to frontline treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone). Patients with the ALK+ ALCL signature treated with CHOP have a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 70%-90%, but this group only makes up about 6% of PTCL cases in North America, she added.

One of the most promising breakthroughs in treatment has been the addition of the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) to chemotherapy with CHP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone), Dr. Vose said. Results from the ECHELON-2 trial indicate that CD30+ PTCL patients have improved performance with R-CHP, compared with CHOP; 5-year progression free survival (PFS) rates were 51.4% with R+CHP versus 43.0% with CHOP, and 5-year overall survival rates were 70.1% versus 61.0%, respectively.

“ALCL is one of the most prevalent PTCL subtypes and accounts for about 24% of all PTCL; the current standard-of-care for induction treatment in these patients is BV-CHP,” said Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. Dr. Ruan explained the limitation of adding BV-CHP, saying “We don’t have as effective biological targeted therapies in other subtypes of T-cell lymphoma, such as PTCL NOS [not-other specified] or angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.”

There is evidence that autologous stem cell transplant (ACST) can increase PFS and OS in newly diagnosed patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), but not in patients with other types of newly diagnosed PTCL. The estimated 2-year OS and PFS for patients with AITL who received ASCT + chemotherapy were 93.3% and 68.8 respectively versus 52.9% and 41.2 in the non-ASCT group. This news is promising, yet Dr. Vose presented statistics indicating that AITL PTCL has been estimated to account for less than 19% of PTCL cases.

Despite the improvements in PFS and OS in a few subtypes for frontline PTCL, 60% of patients with non-ALCL PTCL will relapse, and relapsed/ refractory (R/R) PTCL patients have a median PFS of 9.6 months. Several studies have shown some promise for improving outcomes in R/R PTCL patients, such as the phase-II PRIMO study of duvelisib (a dual PI3K-delta,gamma inhibitor), in which there was an overall response rate of 50% and a complete response rate of 32%. Despite these modest gains, the prognosis for most PTCL patients remains poor. Dr. Vose concluded her presentation by reiterating the need for new agents and for further research. She emphasized that studies will need to be collaborative and international to enroll sufficient patients.

Dr Ruan drew a similar conclusion, noting “We need to increase clinical, translational and basic research on a collaborative scale, so that we can advance bench-to-bedside discovery and bring new treatment to patients quickly.”

Dr. Vose disclosed research funding from Epizyme, GenMab, Kite, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Ruan disclosed clinical research trial support from BMS and Daiichi Sankyo.
 

NEW YORK – Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) make up only about 10% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, yet this disease presents a vexing problem. The majority of patients relapse, but efforts to develop new therapies are stymied by the rarity and genetic varieties of the condition.

University of Nebraska Medical Center
Dr. Julie M. Vose

“Over the past 5 years, researchers have gotten a clearer picture of the different subtypes of peripheral T-cell lymphomas, and with this knowledge we are trying to identify potential targets of new treatments. Despite some progress, the need for these new treatments is still acute, due to the disease’s many subtypes and the difficulty of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients in clinical trials,” said Julie M. Vose, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia and Myeloma Congress 2023, in New York. Before her presentation at this year’s conference, Dr. Vose was awarded the SASS-ARENA Foundation’s John Ultmann Award for Major Contributions to Lymphoma Research.

Dr. Vose noted that only one subtype of PTCL, ALK+ ALCL, responds well to frontline treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone). Patients with the ALK+ ALCL signature treated with CHOP have a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 70%-90%, but this group only makes up about 6% of PTCL cases in North America, she added.

One of the most promising breakthroughs in treatment has been the addition of the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) to chemotherapy with CHP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone), Dr. Vose said. Results from the ECHELON-2 trial indicate that CD30+ PTCL patients have improved performance with R-CHP, compared with CHOP; 5-year progression free survival (PFS) rates were 51.4% with R+CHP versus 43.0% with CHOP, and 5-year overall survival rates were 70.1% versus 61.0%, respectively.

“ALCL is one of the most prevalent PTCL subtypes and accounts for about 24% of all PTCL; the current standard-of-care for induction treatment in these patients is BV-CHP,” said Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. Dr. Ruan explained the limitation of adding BV-CHP, saying “We don’t have as effective biological targeted therapies in other subtypes of T-cell lymphoma, such as PTCL NOS [not-other specified] or angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.”

There is evidence that autologous stem cell transplant (ACST) can increase PFS and OS in newly diagnosed patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), but not in patients with other types of newly diagnosed PTCL. The estimated 2-year OS and PFS for patients with AITL who received ASCT + chemotherapy were 93.3% and 68.8 respectively versus 52.9% and 41.2 in the non-ASCT group. This news is promising, yet Dr. Vose presented statistics indicating that AITL PTCL has been estimated to account for less than 19% of PTCL cases.

Despite the improvements in PFS and OS in a few subtypes for frontline PTCL, 60% of patients with non-ALCL PTCL will relapse, and relapsed/ refractory (R/R) PTCL patients have a median PFS of 9.6 months. Several studies have shown some promise for improving outcomes in R/R PTCL patients, such as the phase-II PRIMO study of duvelisib (a dual PI3K-delta,gamma inhibitor), in which there was an overall response rate of 50% and a complete response rate of 32%. Despite these modest gains, the prognosis for most PTCL patients remains poor. Dr. Vose concluded her presentation by reiterating the need for new agents and for further research. She emphasized that studies will need to be collaborative and international to enroll sufficient patients.

Dr Ruan drew a similar conclusion, noting “We need to increase clinical, translational and basic research on a collaborative scale, so that we can advance bench-to-bedside discovery and bring new treatment to patients quickly.”

Dr. Vose disclosed research funding from Epizyme, GenMab, Kite, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Ruan disclosed clinical research trial support from BMS and Daiichi Sankyo.
 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT LLM CONGRESS 2023

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Commentary: Axillary Surgery, PM2.5, and Treatment With Tucatinib in Breast Cancer, November 2023

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 11/09/2023 - 11:58
Display Headline
Commentary: Axillary Surgery, PM2.5, and Treatment With Tucatinib in Breast Cancer, November 2023
Dr. Roesch scans the journals so you don't have to!

Erin Roesch, MD
Support for axillary surgery de-escalation for select patients with early-stage breast cancer has been demonstrated in prior studies,1,2 leading to widespread use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for axillary staging for many patients. For example, the phase 3 randomized ACOSOG Z0011 trial showed that among women with T1/2 breast cancer, without palpable lymph nodes and one to two sentinel lymph nodes positive, survival outcomes were noninferior for sentinel lymph node dissection vs axillary lymph node dissection.1 The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial was a phase 3 prospective randomized study that included 1405 women with early breast cancer, tumor size ≤ 2 cm, and negative preoperative axillary ultrasound, and was designed to investigate the effect of axillary surgery omission in these patients (Gentilini et al). Five-year distant disease-free survival, the primary endpoint, was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98.0% in the no-axillary-surgery group (log-rank P = .67; hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, noninferiority P = .02). Rates of locoregional relapse (1.7% vs 1.6%), distant metastases (1.8% vs 2.0%), and deaths (3.0% vs 2.6%) were similar in the SLNB group compared with the no-axillary-surgery group, respectively. Furthermore, adjuvant treatments were not significantly different between the two groups, indicating that tumor biology/genomics may have an expanding role in tailoring adjuvant therapy compared with clinicopathologic features. The results of this study suggest that axillary surgery omission can be considered in patients with ≤ T2 early breast cancer and negative axillary ultrasound when absence of this pathologic information does not affect the adjuvant treatment plan.

Hormone receptor–positive breast cancer is the most common subtype, with established risk factors including exposure to exogenous hormones, reproductive history, and lifestyle components (alcohol intake, obesity). There are also less-recognized environmental influences that may disrupt endocrine pathways and, as a result, affect tumor development. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5), produced by combustion processes (vehicles, industrial facilities), burning wood, and fires, among other sources, is composed of various airborne pollutants (metals, organic compounds, ammonium, nitrate, ozone, sulfate, etc.). Prior studies evaluating the association of PM2.5 and breast cancer development have shown mixed results.3,4 A prospective US cohort study including 196,905 women without a prior history of breast cancer estimated historical annual average PM2.5 concentrations between 1980 and 1984 (10 years prior to enrollment) (White et al). A total of 15,870 breast cancer cases were identified, and a 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with an 8% increase in overall breast cancer incidence (HR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.13). The association was observed for estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.04-1.17) but not ER-negative tumors. Future studies focusing on historic exposures, investigating geographic differences and the resultant effect on cancer development, are of interest.

HER2CLIMB was a pivotal phase 3 randomized, double-blinded trial that demonstrated significant improvement in survival outcomes with the combination of tucatinib/trastuzumab/capecitabine vs tucatinib/trastuzumab/placebo among patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer.5 Real-world data help inform our daily practice because patients enrolled in clinical trials do not always accurately represent the general population. A retrospective cohort study including 3449 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer evaluated outcomes with tucatinib in a real-world setting, demonstrating results similar to those seen in HER2CLIMB. Among all patients who received tucatinib (n = 216), median real-world time to treatment discontinuation was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.4-8.8), median real-world time to next treatment (which can serve as a proxy for progression-free survival) was 8.7 months (95% CI 6.8-10.7), and real-world overall survival was 26.6 months (95% CI 20.2–not reached). Median real-world time to treatment discontinuation was 8.1 months (95% CI 5.7-9.5) for patients who received the approved tucatinib triplet combination after one or more HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and 9.4 months (95% CI 6.3-14.1) for those receiving it in the second- or third-line setting (Kaufman et al). These results support the efficacy of tucatinib in a real-world population, suggesting that earlier use (second or third line) may result in better outcomes. Future studies will continue to address the positioning of tucatinib in the treatment algorithm for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, including the evaluation of novel combinations.

Additional References

  1. Giuliano AE et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:918-926. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470 
  2. Bartels SAL, Donker M, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized controlled EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2159-2165. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01565
  3. Gabet S, Lemarchand C, Guénel P, Slama R. Breast cancer risk in association with atmospheric pollution exposure: A meta-analysis of effect estimates followed by a health impact assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2021;129:57012. doi: 10.1289/EHP8419
  4. Hvidtfeldt UA et al. Breast cancer incidence in relation to long-term low-level exposure to air pollution in the ELAPSE pooled cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:105-113. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0720  
  5. Murthy RK et al. Tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:597-609. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1914609
Author and Disclosure Information

Erin E. Roesch, MD, Associate Staff, Department of Medical Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Erin E. Roesch, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Puma Biotechnology

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Erin E. Roesch, MD, Associate Staff, Department of Medical Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Erin E. Roesch, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Puma Biotechnology

Author and Disclosure Information

Erin E. Roesch, MD, Associate Staff, Department of Medical Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Erin E. Roesch, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Puma Biotechnology

Dr. Roesch scans the journals so you don't have to!
Dr. Roesch scans the journals so you don't have to!

Erin Roesch, MD
Support for axillary surgery de-escalation for select patients with early-stage breast cancer has been demonstrated in prior studies,1,2 leading to widespread use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for axillary staging for many patients. For example, the phase 3 randomized ACOSOG Z0011 trial showed that among women with T1/2 breast cancer, without palpable lymph nodes and one to two sentinel lymph nodes positive, survival outcomes were noninferior for sentinel lymph node dissection vs axillary lymph node dissection.1 The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial was a phase 3 prospective randomized study that included 1405 women with early breast cancer, tumor size ≤ 2 cm, and negative preoperative axillary ultrasound, and was designed to investigate the effect of axillary surgery omission in these patients (Gentilini et al). Five-year distant disease-free survival, the primary endpoint, was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98.0% in the no-axillary-surgery group (log-rank P = .67; hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, noninferiority P = .02). Rates of locoregional relapse (1.7% vs 1.6%), distant metastases (1.8% vs 2.0%), and deaths (3.0% vs 2.6%) were similar in the SLNB group compared with the no-axillary-surgery group, respectively. Furthermore, adjuvant treatments were not significantly different between the two groups, indicating that tumor biology/genomics may have an expanding role in tailoring adjuvant therapy compared with clinicopathologic features. The results of this study suggest that axillary surgery omission can be considered in patients with ≤ T2 early breast cancer and negative axillary ultrasound when absence of this pathologic information does not affect the adjuvant treatment plan.

Hormone receptor–positive breast cancer is the most common subtype, with established risk factors including exposure to exogenous hormones, reproductive history, and lifestyle components (alcohol intake, obesity). There are also less-recognized environmental influences that may disrupt endocrine pathways and, as a result, affect tumor development. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5), produced by combustion processes (vehicles, industrial facilities), burning wood, and fires, among other sources, is composed of various airborne pollutants (metals, organic compounds, ammonium, nitrate, ozone, sulfate, etc.). Prior studies evaluating the association of PM2.5 and breast cancer development have shown mixed results.3,4 A prospective US cohort study including 196,905 women without a prior history of breast cancer estimated historical annual average PM2.5 concentrations between 1980 and 1984 (10 years prior to enrollment) (White et al). A total of 15,870 breast cancer cases were identified, and a 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with an 8% increase in overall breast cancer incidence (HR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.13). The association was observed for estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.04-1.17) but not ER-negative tumors. Future studies focusing on historic exposures, investigating geographic differences and the resultant effect on cancer development, are of interest.

HER2CLIMB was a pivotal phase 3 randomized, double-blinded trial that demonstrated significant improvement in survival outcomes with the combination of tucatinib/trastuzumab/capecitabine vs tucatinib/trastuzumab/placebo among patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer.5 Real-world data help inform our daily practice because patients enrolled in clinical trials do not always accurately represent the general population. A retrospective cohort study including 3449 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer evaluated outcomes with tucatinib in a real-world setting, demonstrating results similar to those seen in HER2CLIMB. Among all patients who received tucatinib (n = 216), median real-world time to treatment discontinuation was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.4-8.8), median real-world time to next treatment (which can serve as a proxy for progression-free survival) was 8.7 months (95% CI 6.8-10.7), and real-world overall survival was 26.6 months (95% CI 20.2–not reached). Median real-world time to treatment discontinuation was 8.1 months (95% CI 5.7-9.5) for patients who received the approved tucatinib triplet combination after one or more HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and 9.4 months (95% CI 6.3-14.1) for those receiving it in the second- or third-line setting (Kaufman et al). These results support the efficacy of tucatinib in a real-world population, suggesting that earlier use (second or third line) may result in better outcomes. Future studies will continue to address the positioning of tucatinib in the treatment algorithm for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, including the evaluation of novel combinations.

Additional References

  1. Giuliano AE et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:918-926. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470 
  2. Bartels SAL, Donker M, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized controlled EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2159-2165. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01565
  3. Gabet S, Lemarchand C, Guénel P, Slama R. Breast cancer risk in association with atmospheric pollution exposure: A meta-analysis of effect estimates followed by a health impact assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2021;129:57012. doi: 10.1289/EHP8419
  4. Hvidtfeldt UA et al. Breast cancer incidence in relation to long-term low-level exposure to air pollution in the ELAPSE pooled cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:105-113. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0720  
  5. Murthy RK et al. Tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:597-609. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1914609

Erin Roesch, MD
Support for axillary surgery de-escalation for select patients with early-stage breast cancer has been demonstrated in prior studies,1,2 leading to widespread use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for axillary staging for many patients. For example, the phase 3 randomized ACOSOG Z0011 trial showed that among women with T1/2 breast cancer, without palpable lymph nodes and one to two sentinel lymph nodes positive, survival outcomes were noninferior for sentinel lymph node dissection vs axillary lymph node dissection.1 The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial was a phase 3 prospective randomized study that included 1405 women with early breast cancer, tumor size ≤ 2 cm, and negative preoperative axillary ultrasound, and was designed to investigate the effect of axillary surgery omission in these patients (Gentilini et al). Five-year distant disease-free survival, the primary endpoint, was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98.0% in the no-axillary-surgery group (log-rank P = .67; hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, noninferiority P = .02). Rates of locoregional relapse (1.7% vs 1.6%), distant metastases (1.8% vs 2.0%), and deaths (3.0% vs 2.6%) were similar in the SLNB group compared with the no-axillary-surgery group, respectively. Furthermore, adjuvant treatments were not significantly different between the two groups, indicating that tumor biology/genomics may have an expanding role in tailoring adjuvant therapy compared with clinicopathologic features. The results of this study suggest that axillary surgery omission can be considered in patients with ≤ T2 early breast cancer and negative axillary ultrasound when absence of this pathologic information does not affect the adjuvant treatment plan.

Hormone receptor–positive breast cancer is the most common subtype, with established risk factors including exposure to exogenous hormones, reproductive history, and lifestyle components (alcohol intake, obesity). There are also less-recognized environmental influences that may disrupt endocrine pathways and, as a result, affect tumor development. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5), produced by combustion processes (vehicles, industrial facilities), burning wood, and fires, among other sources, is composed of various airborne pollutants (metals, organic compounds, ammonium, nitrate, ozone, sulfate, etc.). Prior studies evaluating the association of PM2.5 and breast cancer development have shown mixed results.3,4 A prospective US cohort study including 196,905 women without a prior history of breast cancer estimated historical annual average PM2.5 concentrations between 1980 and 1984 (10 years prior to enrollment) (White et al). A total of 15,870 breast cancer cases were identified, and a 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with an 8% increase in overall breast cancer incidence (HR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.13). The association was observed for estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.04-1.17) but not ER-negative tumors. Future studies focusing on historic exposures, investigating geographic differences and the resultant effect on cancer development, are of interest.

HER2CLIMB was a pivotal phase 3 randomized, double-blinded trial that demonstrated significant improvement in survival outcomes with the combination of tucatinib/trastuzumab/capecitabine vs tucatinib/trastuzumab/placebo among patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer.5 Real-world data help inform our daily practice because patients enrolled in clinical trials do not always accurately represent the general population. A retrospective cohort study including 3449 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer evaluated outcomes with tucatinib in a real-world setting, demonstrating results similar to those seen in HER2CLIMB. Among all patients who received tucatinib (n = 216), median real-world time to treatment discontinuation was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.4-8.8), median real-world time to next treatment (which can serve as a proxy for progression-free survival) was 8.7 months (95% CI 6.8-10.7), and real-world overall survival was 26.6 months (95% CI 20.2–not reached). Median real-world time to treatment discontinuation was 8.1 months (95% CI 5.7-9.5) for patients who received the approved tucatinib triplet combination after one or more HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and 9.4 months (95% CI 6.3-14.1) for those receiving it in the second- or third-line setting (Kaufman et al). These results support the efficacy of tucatinib in a real-world population, suggesting that earlier use (second or third line) may result in better outcomes. Future studies will continue to address the positioning of tucatinib in the treatment algorithm for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, including the evaluation of novel combinations.

Additional References

  1. Giuliano AE et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:918-926. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470 
  2. Bartels SAL, Donker M, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized controlled EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2159-2165. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01565
  3. Gabet S, Lemarchand C, Guénel P, Slama R. Breast cancer risk in association with atmospheric pollution exposure: A meta-analysis of effect estimates followed by a health impact assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2021;129:57012. doi: 10.1289/EHP8419
  4. Hvidtfeldt UA et al. Breast cancer incidence in relation to long-term low-level exposure to air pollution in the ELAPSE pooled cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:105-113. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0720  
  5. Murthy RK et al. Tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:597-609. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1914609
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Commentary: Axillary Surgery, PM2.5, and Treatment With Tucatinib in Breast Cancer, November 2023
Display Headline
Commentary: Axillary Surgery, PM2.5, and Treatment With Tucatinib in Breast Cancer, November 2023
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan: Breast Cancer November 2023
Gate On Date
Fri, 09/29/2023 - 14:00
Un-Gate On Date
Fri, 09/29/2023 - 14:00
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Fri, 09/29/2023 - 14:00
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Activity Salesforce Deliverable ID
367005.2
Activity ID
93656
Product Name
Clinical Edge Journal Scan
Product ID
124
Supporter Name /ID
Perjeta [ 3532 ]

‘We finally made it’: Amivantamab comes of age in NSCLC

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 10/28/2023 - 23:32

New data from three trials evaluating the bispecific antibody amivantamab (Rybrevant) in EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have revealed a clear benefit, experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.

Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.

Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.

The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.

In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.

The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).

A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.

The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).

The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.

Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”

The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
 

 

 

The MARIPOSA trials

The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.

Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.

Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.

For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).

After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.

The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).

The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).

Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.

As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.

Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”

Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.

In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).

Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.

The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.

After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.

This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).

The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.

The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.

Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.

Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.

The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.

However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”

“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.

PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.

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

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

New data from three trials evaluating the bispecific antibody amivantamab (Rybrevant) in EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have revealed a clear benefit, experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.

Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.

Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.

The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.

In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.

The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).

A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.

The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).

The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.

Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”

The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
 

 

 

The MARIPOSA trials

The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.

Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.

Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.

For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).

After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.

The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).

The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).

Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.

As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.

Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”

Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.

In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).

Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.

The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.

After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.

This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).

The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.

The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.

Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.

Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.

The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.

However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”

“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.

PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.

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

New data from three trials evaluating the bispecific antibody amivantamab (Rybrevant) in EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have revealed a clear benefit, experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.

Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.

Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.

The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.

In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.

The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).

A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.

The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).

The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.

Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”

The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
 

 

 

The MARIPOSA trials

The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.

Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.

Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.

For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).

After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.

The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).

The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).

Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.

As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.

Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”

Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.

In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).

Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.

The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.

After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.

This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).

The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.

The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.

Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.

Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.

The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.

However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”

“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.

PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT ESMO 2023

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Induction chemotherapy in first line improves survival for locally advanced cervical cancer

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 10/28/2023 - 23:32

Six weeks of induction chemotherapy before definitive chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer substantially improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.

Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.

She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.

Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.

“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.

Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.

“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.

Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.

KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.

Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.

He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.

Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.

It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.

The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.

One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.

Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.

The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Six weeks of induction chemotherapy before definitive chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer substantially improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.

Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.

She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.

Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.

“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.

Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.

“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.

Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.

KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.

Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.

He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.

Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.

It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.

The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.

One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.

Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.

The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.

Six weeks of induction chemotherapy before definitive chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer substantially improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.

Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.

She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.

Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.

“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.

Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.

“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.

Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.

KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.

Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.

He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.

Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.

It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.

The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.

One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.

Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.

The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM ESMO CONGRESS 2023

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

FDA warns of hidden ingredients in arthritis, pain products

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 10/30/2023 - 12:01

Certain products marketed for arthritis and pain management could contain hidden ingredients that could be harmful to consumers, according to a warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Some of these products contain active ingredients found in anti-inflammatory prescription medication.

“These products may cause potentially serious side effects and may interact with medications or dietary supplements a consumer is taking,” the FDA said in a statement. “It is clear from the results of our decade of testing that retailers and distributors, including online marketplaces, do not effectively prevent these types of potentially harmful products from being sold to consumers.”

Unlike prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs such as loratadine (Claritin) or acetaminophen (Tylenol), supplements do not need FDA approval before they can be sold. Only after a complaint is made or FDA testing reveals illegal or unsafe ingredients can the FDA get involved.

From August 2013 to September 2023, the FDA identified 22 arthritis and pain products with active ingredients not disclosed on the product label. The most common hidden ingredients detected in these supplements were prescription-only corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxants, said Candy Tsourounis, PharmD, a professor in the department of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

Kuka Flex Forte and Reumo Flex, both promoted for joint pain and arthritis, both contain the NSAID diclofenac. Tapee Tea, a product promoted for pain relief, contains dexamethasone and piroxicam. AK Forte, also sold for joint pain and arthritis, contains diclofenac, dexamethasone, and methocarbamol not disclosed on the label.

“It is interesting that these products have hidden ingredients that are used to reduce swelling and inflammation,” Dr. Tsourounis said. “I don’t know if this was intentional, but it seems suspicious that a product marketed to reduce joint pain and inflammation contains prescription-only ingredients that are used for this purpose.”

Certain products also contained antihistamines including cyproheptadine and chlorpheniramine.

These types of products are likely targeted toward underserved and immigrant communities, added Pieter Cohen, MD, a primary care physician and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies dietary supplements. They might be sold in mom-and-pop shops or gas stations to individuals with limited access to health care or insurance, he noted.

The FDA warned that this list included “only a small fraction of the potentially dangerous products marketed to consumers online and in stores. Even if a product is not included in this list, consumers should exercise caution before using these types of arthritis and pain management products.”
 

Advising patients

Research suggests that most patients do not tell doctors about the supplements they are taking, and often, clinicians do not ask, said Dr. Cohen. “Most of the time it’s a total black box – we don’t know what’s going on,” he added.

He advised raising the subject of supplements in a very nonjudgmental way, particularly when treating patients in marginalized and immigrant communities. One approach he suggested was first mentioning that other patients in your care dealing with joint pain have bought remedies locally or have tried treatments that friends recommend. You can then ask a patient about their own use, framing it as a way to better help with treatment decisions.

Once a clinician understands what their patient is taking, they can then give advice and discuss if a product is safe to combine with prescription drugs, Dr. Cohen said. “If they come down too hard, I think the patients will just clam up and not talk about it anymore,” he said.

If a patient begins to experience side effects or gets sick, a clinician will already be informed of what their patient is taking and can ask that patient to bring the product or supplement in, so they can look over the product together, Dr. Cohen noted. Any side effects or other adverse events potentially related to the use of these products should then be reported to FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

 

 

Tips for safe shopping

To make sure supplements and other over-the-counter products are safe to use, Dr. Tsourounis recommends that consumers:

  • Buy products from well-known retailers like Target or large pharmacies like CVS or Walgreens.
  • Avoid buying products with labels in another language that you cannot read or products with no drug label.
  • Be cautious of buying products online or from other countries.
  • Look up suspicious products on the FDA’s health fraud database.
  • Be wary of any product that offers miracle cures or relies on personal testimonies without evidence.

In general, do not base purchasing decisions on any health claims on a product label because companies selling supplements making these claims “don’t have to have any clinical data to back them up,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Cohen also recommends sticking with individual ingredients. “If you want echinacea, buy echinacea. Don’t buy a complicated mix that is supposed to be good for arthritis with 10 different botanical [ingredients]. That’s more likely to run [you] into trouble,” he said.

Last, Dr. Cohen recommended buying supplements that are certified by NSF International or United States Pharmacopeia, both respected third-party testing organizations. “If it has an NSF International or USP stamp, that gives us more certainty that what’s in the bottle is going to be what’s listed on label,” he said.

Dr. Tsourounis noted that if you are skeptical of a product, you can also try calling the manufacturer number on the product label.

“I always encourage people to call that number to see if somebody answers,” she said. “Sometimes, you can tell a lot about that company just by calling that number.”

Dr. Cohen has received research support from the Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UpToDate. He has collaborated in research with NSF International. Dr. Tsourounis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

Certain products marketed for arthritis and pain management could contain hidden ingredients that could be harmful to consumers, according to a warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Some of these products contain active ingredients found in anti-inflammatory prescription medication.

“These products may cause potentially serious side effects and may interact with medications or dietary supplements a consumer is taking,” the FDA said in a statement. “It is clear from the results of our decade of testing that retailers and distributors, including online marketplaces, do not effectively prevent these types of potentially harmful products from being sold to consumers.”

Unlike prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs such as loratadine (Claritin) or acetaminophen (Tylenol), supplements do not need FDA approval before they can be sold. Only after a complaint is made or FDA testing reveals illegal or unsafe ingredients can the FDA get involved.

From August 2013 to September 2023, the FDA identified 22 arthritis and pain products with active ingredients not disclosed on the product label. The most common hidden ingredients detected in these supplements were prescription-only corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxants, said Candy Tsourounis, PharmD, a professor in the department of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

Kuka Flex Forte and Reumo Flex, both promoted for joint pain and arthritis, both contain the NSAID diclofenac. Tapee Tea, a product promoted for pain relief, contains dexamethasone and piroxicam. AK Forte, also sold for joint pain and arthritis, contains diclofenac, dexamethasone, and methocarbamol not disclosed on the label.

“It is interesting that these products have hidden ingredients that are used to reduce swelling and inflammation,” Dr. Tsourounis said. “I don’t know if this was intentional, but it seems suspicious that a product marketed to reduce joint pain and inflammation contains prescription-only ingredients that are used for this purpose.”

Certain products also contained antihistamines including cyproheptadine and chlorpheniramine.

These types of products are likely targeted toward underserved and immigrant communities, added Pieter Cohen, MD, a primary care physician and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies dietary supplements. They might be sold in mom-and-pop shops or gas stations to individuals with limited access to health care or insurance, he noted.

The FDA warned that this list included “only a small fraction of the potentially dangerous products marketed to consumers online and in stores. Even if a product is not included in this list, consumers should exercise caution before using these types of arthritis and pain management products.”
 

Advising patients

Research suggests that most patients do not tell doctors about the supplements they are taking, and often, clinicians do not ask, said Dr. Cohen. “Most of the time it’s a total black box – we don’t know what’s going on,” he added.

He advised raising the subject of supplements in a very nonjudgmental way, particularly when treating patients in marginalized and immigrant communities. One approach he suggested was first mentioning that other patients in your care dealing with joint pain have bought remedies locally or have tried treatments that friends recommend. You can then ask a patient about their own use, framing it as a way to better help with treatment decisions.

Once a clinician understands what their patient is taking, they can then give advice and discuss if a product is safe to combine with prescription drugs, Dr. Cohen said. “If they come down too hard, I think the patients will just clam up and not talk about it anymore,” he said.

If a patient begins to experience side effects or gets sick, a clinician will already be informed of what their patient is taking and can ask that patient to bring the product or supplement in, so they can look over the product together, Dr. Cohen noted. Any side effects or other adverse events potentially related to the use of these products should then be reported to FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

 

 

Tips for safe shopping

To make sure supplements and other over-the-counter products are safe to use, Dr. Tsourounis recommends that consumers:

  • Buy products from well-known retailers like Target or large pharmacies like CVS or Walgreens.
  • Avoid buying products with labels in another language that you cannot read or products with no drug label.
  • Be cautious of buying products online or from other countries.
  • Look up suspicious products on the FDA’s health fraud database.
  • Be wary of any product that offers miracle cures or relies on personal testimonies without evidence.

In general, do not base purchasing decisions on any health claims on a product label because companies selling supplements making these claims “don’t have to have any clinical data to back them up,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Cohen also recommends sticking with individual ingredients. “If you want echinacea, buy echinacea. Don’t buy a complicated mix that is supposed to be good for arthritis with 10 different botanical [ingredients]. That’s more likely to run [you] into trouble,” he said.

Last, Dr. Cohen recommended buying supplements that are certified by NSF International or United States Pharmacopeia, both respected third-party testing organizations. “If it has an NSF International or USP stamp, that gives us more certainty that what’s in the bottle is going to be what’s listed on label,” he said.

Dr. Tsourounis noted that if you are skeptical of a product, you can also try calling the manufacturer number on the product label.

“I always encourage people to call that number to see if somebody answers,” she said. “Sometimes, you can tell a lot about that company just by calling that number.”

Dr. Cohen has received research support from the Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UpToDate. He has collaborated in research with NSF International. Dr. Tsourounis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Certain products marketed for arthritis and pain management could contain hidden ingredients that could be harmful to consumers, according to a warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Some of these products contain active ingredients found in anti-inflammatory prescription medication.

“These products may cause potentially serious side effects and may interact with medications or dietary supplements a consumer is taking,” the FDA said in a statement. “It is clear from the results of our decade of testing that retailers and distributors, including online marketplaces, do not effectively prevent these types of potentially harmful products from being sold to consumers.”

Unlike prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs such as loratadine (Claritin) or acetaminophen (Tylenol), supplements do not need FDA approval before they can be sold. Only after a complaint is made or FDA testing reveals illegal or unsafe ingredients can the FDA get involved.

From August 2013 to September 2023, the FDA identified 22 arthritis and pain products with active ingredients not disclosed on the product label. The most common hidden ingredients detected in these supplements were prescription-only corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxants, said Candy Tsourounis, PharmD, a professor in the department of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

Kuka Flex Forte and Reumo Flex, both promoted for joint pain and arthritis, both contain the NSAID diclofenac. Tapee Tea, a product promoted for pain relief, contains dexamethasone and piroxicam. AK Forte, also sold for joint pain and arthritis, contains diclofenac, dexamethasone, and methocarbamol not disclosed on the label.

“It is interesting that these products have hidden ingredients that are used to reduce swelling and inflammation,” Dr. Tsourounis said. “I don’t know if this was intentional, but it seems suspicious that a product marketed to reduce joint pain and inflammation contains prescription-only ingredients that are used for this purpose.”

Certain products also contained antihistamines including cyproheptadine and chlorpheniramine.

These types of products are likely targeted toward underserved and immigrant communities, added Pieter Cohen, MD, a primary care physician and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies dietary supplements. They might be sold in mom-and-pop shops or gas stations to individuals with limited access to health care or insurance, he noted.

The FDA warned that this list included “only a small fraction of the potentially dangerous products marketed to consumers online and in stores. Even if a product is not included in this list, consumers should exercise caution before using these types of arthritis and pain management products.”
 

Advising patients

Research suggests that most patients do not tell doctors about the supplements they are taking, and often, clinicians do not ask, said Dr. Cohen. “Most of the time it’s a total black box – we don’t know what’s going on,” he added.

He advised raising the subject of supplements in a very nonjudgmental way, particularly when treating patients in marginalized and immigrant communities. One approach he suggested was first mentioning that other patients in your care dealing with joint pain have bought remedies locally or have tried treatments that friends recommend. You can then ask a patient about their own use, framing it as a way to better help with treatment decisions.

Once a clinician understands what their patient is taking, they can then give advice and discuss if a product is safe to combine with prescription drugs, Dr. Cohen said. “If they come down too hard, I think the patients will just clam up and not talk about it anymore,” he said.

If a patient begins to experience side effects or gets sick, a clinician will already be informed of what their patient is taking and can ask that patient to bring the product or supplement in, so they can look over the product together, Dr. Cohen noted. Any side effects or other adverse events potentially related to the use of these products should then be reported to FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

 

 

Tips for safe shopping

To make sure supplements and other over-the-counter products are safe to use, Dr. Tsourounis recommends that consumers:

  • Buy products from well-known retailers like Target or large pharmacies like CVS or Walgreens.
  • Avoid buying products with labels in another language that you cannot read or products with no drug label.
  • Be cautious of buying products online or from other countries.
  • Look up suspicious products on the FDA’s health fraud database.
  • Be wary of any product that offers miracle cures or relies on personal testimonies without evidence.

In general, do not base purchasing decisions on any health claims on a product label because companies selling supplements making these claims “don’t have to have any clinical data to back them up,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Cohen also recommends sticking with individual ingredients. “If you want echinacea, buy echinacea. Don’t buy a complicated mix that is supposed to be good for arthritis with 10 different botanical [ingredients]. That’s more likely to run [you] into trouble,” he said.

Last, Dr. Cohen recommended buying supplements that are certified by NSF International or United States Pharmacopeia, both respected third-party testing organizations. “If it has an NSF International or USP stamp, that gives us more certainty that what’s in the bottle is going to be what’s listed on label,” he said.

Dr. Tsourounis noted that if you are skeptical of a product, you can also try calling the manufacturer number on the product label.

“I always encourage people to call that number to see if somebody answers,” she said. “Sometimes, you can tell a lot about that company just by calling that number.”

Dr. Cohen has received research support from the Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UpToDate. He has collaborated in research with NSF International. Dr. Tsourounis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article