User login
-
Daratumumab Quadruplet Supported Transplant-Ineligible MM
“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.
“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”
For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.
However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.
For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).
In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.
The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.
Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.
The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.
For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).
Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).
A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.
A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).
There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.
Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.
The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.
In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.
Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.
Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.
“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”
Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.
“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.
“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”
He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”
Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”
“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.
“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.
Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.
“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”
For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.
However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.
For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).
In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.
The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.
Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.
The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.
For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).
Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).
A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.
A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).
There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.
Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.
The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.
In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.
Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.
Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.
“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”
Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.
“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.
“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”
He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”
Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”
“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.
“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.
Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.
“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”
For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.
However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.
For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).
In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.
The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.
Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.
The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.
For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).
Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).
A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.
A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).
There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.
Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.
The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.
In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.
Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.
Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.
“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”
Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.
“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.
“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”
He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”
Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”
“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.
“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.
Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM IMS 2024
Millennial Clinicians Face Pay Disparities by Specialty, Other Factors
Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.
Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.
The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.
“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.
The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.
“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”
Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.
Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.
Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.
“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”
Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.
Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.
Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.
Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.
The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.
“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.
The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.
“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”
Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.
Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.
Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.
“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”
Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.
Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.
Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.
Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.
The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.
“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.
The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.
“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”
Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.
Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.
Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.
“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”
Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.
Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.
Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Cancer Doesn’t Wait’: How Prior Authorization Harms Care
Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull.
Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient.
She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord.
Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube.
By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach.
“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’
While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.
Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.
‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
Barriers at Every Step
As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.
‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.
To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022.
The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.
Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.
Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?
Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control.
Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said.
She views this as tragically shortsighted.
‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said.
In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.
‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’
Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.
In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies.
Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.
Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too.
One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.
Then there is the burnout factor.
Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait.
‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.
Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.
‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.
The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”
Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients.
But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’
She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.
Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.
Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’
But not all the stories end like this.
Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*
If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.
And her patient might be alive today.
‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”
*Correction, 10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull.
Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient.
She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord.
Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube.
By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach.
“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’
While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.
Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.
‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
Barriers at Every Step
As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.
‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.
To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022.
The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.
Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.
Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?
Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control.
Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said.
She views this as tragically shortsighted.
‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said.
In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.
‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’
Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.
In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies.
Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.
Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too.
One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.
Then there is the burnout factor.
Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait.
‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.
Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.
‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.
The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”
Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients.
But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’
She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.
Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.
Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’
But not all the stories end like this.
Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*
If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.
And her patient might be alive today.
‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”
*Correction, 10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull.
Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient.
She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord.
Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube.
By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach.
“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’
While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.
Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.
‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
Barriers at Every Step
As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.
‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.
To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022.
The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.
Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.
Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?
Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control.
Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said.
She views this as tragically shortsighted.
‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said.
In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.
‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’
Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.
In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies.
Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.
Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too.
One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.
Then there is the burnout factor.
Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait.
‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.
Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.
‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.
The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”
Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients.
But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’
She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.
Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.
Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’
But not all the stories end like this.
Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*
If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.
And her patient might be alive today.
‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”
*Correction, 10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Pfizer’s Withdrawal of SCD Drug Raises Questions
The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.
“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.
On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”
Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.
The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.
On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.
The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.
“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)
As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.
The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.
These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.
“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.
“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.
The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.
The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.
“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”
Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.
“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.
Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.
Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.
“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.
“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.
On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”
Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.
The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.
On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.
The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.
“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)
As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.
The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.
These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.
“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.
“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.
The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.
The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.
“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”
Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.
“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.
Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.
Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.
“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.
“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.
On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”
Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.
The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.
On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.
The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.
“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)
As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.
The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.
These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.
“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.
“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.
The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.
The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.
“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”
Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.
“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.
Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.
Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.
“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Popular Weight Loss Drugs Now for Patients With Cancer?
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Myeloma: Daratumumab Plus Lenalidomide Improves MRD Outcomes
“To date, no randomized trial has directly compared daratumumab-based maintenance therapy vs standard of care lenalidomide maintenance, which is the focus of our trial,” said first author Ashraf Z. Badros, MD, a professor of medicine at the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, in presenting the findings at the International Myeloma Society (IMS) 2024.
“These results support the addition of daratumumab not only to induction/consolidation but also to standard of care lenalidomide maintenance for these patients,” he said of the study, which was published concurrently in the journal Blood.
Despite ongoing advancements in regimens for induction, consolidation, and maintenance posttransplant, most patients with MM eventually relapse, driving continuing efforts to optimize treatment strategies and improve long-term outcomes.
While daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, is approved in induction and consolidation with ASCT for patients with newly diagnosed MM, the authors sought to investigate the potential benefits of adding it to the standard-of-care therapy lenalidomide in maintenance therapy.
For the phase 3 AURIGA trial, they recruited 200 patients with newly diagnosed MM within 12 months of induction therapy and 6 months of ASCT.
The patients, who were all anti-CD38 naive, received at least four induction cycles, had at least a very good partial response, and were MRD positive following ASCT.
They were randomized 1:1 to receive 28-day lenalidomide maintenance cycles either with (n = 99) or without (n = 101) subcutaneous daratumumab for at least 36 cycles or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal.
The patients had similar baseline demographic characteristics; their median age was about 62 years, and 25.3% in the daratumumab and 23.5% in the no-daratumumab group had ISS stage III disease. At the time of diagnosis, 23.9% and 16.9%, respectively, had high cytogenic risk.
Overall, patients received a median of five induction cycles prior to entering the study.
For the primary endpoint, the rate of conversion from MRD positive to MRD negative (at a sensitivity of 10-5 using next-generation sequencing) by 12 months was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the lenalidomide-only group, at 50.5% vs 18.8% (odds ratio [OR], 4.51; P < .0001).
A similar benefit with the daratumumab group was observed across all clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk disease.
The MRD-negative conversion rate was similar at the 10-6 threshold (23.2% vs 5%; OR, 5.97; P = .0002).
At a median follow-up of 32.3 months, the overall rates of MRD negativity were 60.6% and 27.7%, with and without daratumumab, respectively (OR, 4.12; P < .0001)
The achievement of complete response or better also was significantly greater with daratumumab (75.8% vs 61.4%; OR, 2.00; P = .0255).
Likewise, PFS favored daratumumab (hazard ratio, 0.53), and the estimated 30-month PFS rates were 82.7% and 66.4%, respectively.
The daratumumab group received more maintenance cycles than the lenalidomide-only group (median of 33 vs 21.5), and it had higher rates of completion of 12 cycles (88.5% vs 78.6%). Dr. Badros noted that the main reason for discontinuation of therapy in the no-daratumumab arm was disease progression.
Consistent with previous studies, daratumumab was associated with more grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), occurring in 74.0% patients vs 67.3% patients not receiving daratumumab, including infections (18.8% vs 13.3%), cytopenia (54.2% vs 46.9%), and neutropenia (46.9% vs 41.8%). Dr. Badros noted the significantly longer time of treatment in the daratumumab arm (30 months vs 20 months).
Serious TEAEs occurred in 30.2% daratumumab patients and 22.4% no-daratumumab patients, and fatal TEAEs occurred in 2.1% and 1.0% patients, respectively.
“Overall, there were no new safety concerns for daratumumab,” he said.
The authors noted that the requirement that patients be anti-CD38 naive was partially because of “the D-VRd [daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone] regimen gaining popularity and increased utilization in the myeloma community for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM, even before the publication of the long-term results of the randomized GRIFFIN and PERSEUS studies.”
A key question, remarked Joseph Mikhael, MD, who is chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, from the audience, is how applicable the findings are in the modern environment, where most patients now have indeed had prior anti-CD38 treatment.
In response, Dr. Badros explained that “I think this is an important study because it is probably one of the few studies that separates the impact of daratumumab-lenalidomide without prior daratumumab use.”
Dr. Badros noted that results from the PERSEUS trial, of D-VRd, show MRD-positive to MRD-negative conversion rates that are similar to the current trial; “therefore, I really don’t think that using daratumumab up front will prevent using it as maintenance,” he said. “If anything, it actually improves outcomes.”
The findings from continuous treatment “are an important reminder that high-risk patients do not do well if you stop treatment,” he said.
Further commenting on the research at the meeting, María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Salamanca in Spain, noted that “the unmet need in maintenance is to upgrade the quality of the response and to increase the conversion of MRD-positivity to MRD negative in order to delay the progression of the disease and prolong the overall survival.”
Regarding the AURIGA trial, “this is very interesting data about the role of daratumumab-lenalidomide maintenance in patients who are MRD positive after autologous stem cell transplantation.”
“What is more important is we are progressing in response-adaptive therapy, and we are generating very useful information to possibly make the majority of patients become MRD negative.
“Developing early endpoints as surrogate markers for long-term outcomes and overall survival is critically important,” she added. “Otherwise, trials may continue for more than 15 years.”
The study was sponsored by Janssen Biotech. Dr. Badros reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Roche, Jansen, and GSK. Mateos disclosed ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Kite, Johnson & Johnson, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“To date, no randomized trial has directly compared daratumumab-based maintenance therapy vs standard of care lenalidomide maintenance, which is the focus of our trial,” said first author Ashraf Z. Badros, MD, a professor of medicine at the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, in presenting the findings at the International Myeloma Society (IMS) 2024.
“These results support the addition of daratumumab not only to induction/consolidation but also to standard of care lenalidomide maintenance for these patients,” he said of the study, which was published concurrently in the journal Blood.
Despite ongoing advancements in regimens for induction, consolidation, and maintenance posttransplant, most patients with MM eventually relapse, driving continuing efforts to optimize treatment strategies and improve long-term outcomes.
While daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, is approved in induction and consolidation with ASCT for patients with newly diagnosed MM, the authors sought to investigate the potential benefits of adding it to the standard-of-care therapy lenalidomide in maintenance therapy.
For the phase 3 AURIGA trial, they recruited 200 patients with newly diagnosed MM within 12 months of induction therapy and 6 months of ASCT.
The patients, who were all anti-CD38 naive, received at least four induction cycles, had at least a very good partial response, and were MRD positive following ASCT.
They were randomized 1:1 to receive 28-day lenalidomide maintenance cycles either with (n = 99) or without (n = 101) subcutaneous daratumumab for at least 36 cycles or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal.
The patients had similar baseline demographic characteristics; their median age was about 62 years, and 25.3% in the daratumumab and 23.5% in the no-daratumumab group had ISS stage III disease. At the time of diagnosis, 23.9% and 16.9%, respectively, had high cytogenic risk.
Overall, patients received a median of five induction cycles prior to entering the study.
For the primary endpoint, the rate of conversion from MRD positive to MRD negative (at a sensitivity of 10-5 using next-generation sequencing) by 12 months was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the lenalidomide-only group, at 50.5% vs 18.8% (odds ratio [OR], 4.51; P < .0001).
A similar benefit with the daratumumab group was observed across all clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk disease.
The MRD-negative conversion rate was similar at the 10-6 threshold (23.2% vs 5%; OR, 5.97; P = .0002).
At a median follow-up of 32.3 months, the overall rates of MRD negativity were 60.6% and 27.7%, with and without daratumumab, respectively (OR, 4.12; P < .0001)
The achievement of complete response or better also was significantly greater with daratumumab (75.8% vs 61.4%; OR, 2.00; P = .0255).
Likewise, PFS favored daratumumab (hazard ratio, 0.53), and the estimated 30-month PFS rates were 82.7% and 66.4%, respectively.
The daratumumab group received more maintenance cycles than the lenalidomide-only group (median of 33 vs 21.5), and it had higher rates of completion of 12 cycles (88.5% vs 78.6%). Dr. Badros noted that the main reason for discontinuation of therapy in the no-daratumumab arm was disease progression.
Consistent with previous studies, daratumumab was associated with more grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), occurring in 74.0% patients vs 67.3% patients not receiving daratumumab, including infections (18.8% vs 13.3%), cytopenia (54.2% vs 46.9%), and neutropenia (46.9% vs 41.8%). Dr. Badros noted the significantly longer time of treatment in the daratumumab arm (30 months vs 20 months).
Serious TEAEs occurred in 30.2% daratumumab patients and 22.4% no-daratumumab patients, and fatal TEAEs occurred in 2.1% and 1.0% patients, respectively.
“Overall, there were no new safety concerns for daratumumab,” he said.
The authors noted that the requirement that patients be anti-CD38 naive was partially because of “the D-VRd [daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone] regimen gaining popularity and increased utilization in the myeloma community for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM, even before the publication of the long-term results of the randomized GRIFFIN and PERSEUS studies.”
A key question, remarked Joseph Mikhael, MD, who is chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, from the audience, is how applicable the findings are in the modern environment, where most patients now have indeed had prior anti-CD38 treatment.
In response, Dr. Badros explained that “I think this is an important study because it is probably one of the few studies that separates the impact of daratumumab-lenalidomide without prior daratumumab use.”
Dr. Badros noted that results from the PERSEUS trial, of D-VRd, show MRD-positive to MRD-negative conversion rates that are similar to the current trial; “therefore, I really don’t think that using daratumumab up front will prevent using it as maintenance,” he said. “If anything, it actually improves outcomes.”
The findings from continuous treatment “are an important reminder that high-risk patients do not do well if you stop treatment,” he said.
Further commenting on the research at the meeting, María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Salamanca in Spain, noted that “the unmet need in maintenance is to upgrade the quality of the response and to increase the conversion of MRD-positivity to MRD negative in order to delay the progression of the disease and prolong the overall survival.”
Regarding the AURIGA trial, “this is very interesting data about the role of daratumumab-lenalidomide maintenance in patients who are MRD positive after autologous stem cell transplantation.”
“What is more important is we are progressing in response-adaptive therapy, and we are generating very useful information to possibly make the majority of patients become MRD negative.
“Developing early endpoints as surrogate markers for long-term outcomes and overall survival is critically important,” she added. “Otherwise, trials may continue for more than 15 years.”
The study was sponsored by Janssen Biotech. Dr. Badros reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Roche, Jansen, and GSK. Mateos disclosed ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Kite, Johnson & Johnson, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“To date, no randomized trial has directly compared daratumumab-based maintenance therapy vs standard of care lenalidomide maintenance, which is the focus of our trial,” said first author Ashraf Z. Badros, MD, a professor of medicine at the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, in presenting the findings at the International Myeloma Society (IMS) 2024.
“These results support the addition of daratumumab not only to induction/consolidation but also to standard of care lenalidomide maintenance for these patients,” he said of the study, which was published concurrently in the journal Blood.
Despite ongoing advancements in regimens for induction, consolidation, and maintenance posttransplant, most patients with MM eventually relapse, driving continuing efforts to optimize treatment strategies and improve long-term outcomes.
While daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, is approved in induction and consolidation with ASCT for patients with newly diagnosed MM, the authors sought to investigate the potential benefits of adding it to the standard-of-care therapy lenalidomide in maintenance therapy.
For the phase 3 AURIGA trial, they recruited 200 patients with newly diagnosed MM within 12 months of induction therapy and 6 months of ASCT.
The patients, who were all anti-CD38 naive, received at least four induction cycles, had at least a very good partial response, and were MRD positive following ASCT.
They were randomized 1:1 to receive 28-day lenalidomide maintenance cycles either with (n = 99) or without (n = 101) subcutaneous daratumumab for at least 36 cycles or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal.
The patients had similar baseline demographic characteristics; their median age was about 62 years, and 25.3% in the daratumumab and 23.5% in the no-daratumumab group had ISS stage III disease. At the time of diagnosis, 23.9% and 16.9%, respectively, had high cytogenic risk.
Overall, patients received a median of five induction cycles prior to entering the study.
For the primary endpoint, the rate of conversion from MRD positive to MRD negative (at a sensitivity of 10-5 using next-generation sequencing) by 12 months was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the lenalidomide-only group, at 50.5% vs 18.8% (odds ratio [OR], 4.51; P < .0001).
A similar benefit with the daratumumab group was observed across all clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk disease.
The MRD-negative conversion rate was similar at the 10-6 threshold (23.2% vs 5%; OR, 5.97; P = .0002).
At a median follow-up of 32.3 months, the overall rates of MRD negativity were 60.6% and 27.7%, with and without daratumumab, respectively (OR, 4.12; P < .0001)
The achievement of complete response or better also was significantly greater with daratumumab (75.8% vs 61.4%; OR, 2.00; P = .0255).
Likewise, PFS favored daratumumab (hazard ratio, 0.53), and the estimated 30-month PFS rates were 82.7% and 66.4%, respectively.
The daratumumab group received more maintenance cycles than the lenalidomide-only group (median of 33 vs 21.5), and it had higher rates of completion of 12 cycles (88.5% vs 78.6%). Dr. Badros noted that the main reason for discontinuation of therapy in the no-daratumumab arm was disease progression.
Consistent with previous studies, daratumumab was associated with more grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), occurring in 74.0% patients vs 67.3% patients not receiving daratumumab, including infections (18.8% vs 13.3%), cytopenia (54.2% vs 46.9%), and neutropenia (46.9% vs 41.8%). Dr. Badros noted the significantly longer time of treatment in the daratumumab arm (30 months vs 20 months).
Serious TEAEs occurred in 30.2% daratumumab patients and 22.4% no-daratumumab patients, and fatal TEAEs occurred in 2.1% and 1.0% patients, respectively.
“Overall, there were no new safety concerns for daratumumab,” he said.
The authors noted that the requirement that patients be anti-CD38 naive was partially because of “the D-VRd [daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone] regimen gaining popularity and increased utilization in the myeloma community for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM, even before the publication of the long-term results of the randomized GRIFFIN and PERSEUS studies.”
A key question, remarked Joseph Mikhael, MD, who is chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, from the audience, is how applicable the findings are in the modern environment, where most patients now have indeed had prior anti-CD38 treatment.
In response, Dr. Badros explained that “I think this is an important study because it is probably one of the few studies that separates the impact of daratumumab-lenalidomide without prior daratumumab use.”
Dr. Badros noted that results from the PERSEUS trial, of D-VRd, show MRD-positive to MRD-negative conversion rates that are similar to the current trial; “therefore, I really don’t think that using daratumumab up front will prevent using it as maintenance,” he said. “If anything, it actually improves outcomes.”
The findings from continuous treatment “are an important reminder that high-risk patients do not do well if you stop treatment,” he said.
Further commenting on the research at the meeting, María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Salamanca in Spain, noted that “the unmet need in maintenance is to upgrade the quality of the response and to increase the conversion of MRD-positivity to MRD negative in order to delay the progression of the disease and prolong the overall survival.”
Regarding the AURIGA trial, “this is very interesting data about the role of daratumumab-lenalidomide maintenance in patients who are MRD positive after autologous stem cell transplantation.”
“What is more important is we are progressing in response-adaptive therapy, and we are generating very useful information to possibly make the majority of patients become MRD negative.
“Developing early endpoints as surrogate markers for long-term outcomes and overall survival is critically important,” she added. “Otherwise, trials may continue for more than 15 years.”
The study was sponsored by Janssen Biotech. Dr. Badros reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Roche, Jansen, and GSK. Mateos disclosed ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Kite, Johnson & Johnson, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM IMS 2024
Ferritin Cutoff Values Affect Diagnosis of Iron Deficiency
Ferritin is the parameter most often used in primary care to diagnose iron deficiency. The cutoff value of ferritin can affect the number of cases diagnosed, however. A study published in JAMA Network Open investigated how different cutoff values affect the diagnosis of iron deficiency.
The study, which included 255,351 adult primary care patients in Switzerland, showed that ferritin cutoff values of 15, 30, and 45 ng/mL were associated with incidences of iron deficiency diagnoses of 10.9, 29.9, and 48.3 cases per 1000 patient-years, respectively. In other words, as the cutoff value increases, the frequency of diagnosis also increases.
“It is a study to take into account, especially because of the number of patients it includes, and it can guide primary care clinical practice. As expected, as the cutoff point increases with respect to ferritin values, the incidence percentages of both iron deficiency and iron-deficiency anemia also increase,” Miguel Turégano-Yedro, MD, a family physician at the Casar de Cáceres Health Center in Spain, and coordinator of the Hematology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians, told this news organization. Ferritin is the most sensitive parameter for diagnosing iron deficiency and iron-deficiency anemia, he added. “When it is necessary to supplement a patient with iron, other parameters are taken into account, such as hemoglobin, to see if there is anemia.”
Ferritin Level
The ferritin level associated with iron deficiency in primary care is usually 15 ng/mL, said Dr. Turégano-Yedro. “If we assess patients with a ferritin level of 15 or less than 15, then we know that many cases will be symptomatic (with fatigue, tiredness, or lack of appetite) and, therefore, will need iron treatment. But if the ferritin cutoff value is increased to 30 ng/mL or 45 ng/mL, the incidence will be higher, although in many cases they will be asymptomatic and iron supplementation will not be necessary.”
He also pointed out that he does not consider it necessary to raise the cutoff to 45 ng/mL; however, “establishing the cutoff at 30 ng/mL, in a certain population at risk of iron deficiency or iron-deficiency anemia, may be interesting, for example in women of childbearing age, women with very heavy menstruation, children, frail elderly, people with gastrointestinal bleeding, or those who engage in physical exercise.”
Iron deficiency must be distinguished from anemia. “If the ferritin is below 15 ng/mL, there is iron deficiency, which may or may not be accompanied by symptoms, although usually most patients will have symptoms. Normally, to diagnose a patient with iron-deficiency anemia, on the one hand, they must have low hemoglobin, which indicates anemia, and on the other hand, low ferritin, which indicates iron deficiency.” Taking these parameters into account, the study does have a weakness. “It is striking that a percentage of patients in the study requested ferritin analysis without including hemoglobin, when hemoglobin is part of the basic analysis performed in Spain,” said Dr. Turégano-Yedro.
When to Supplement
The study highlights the incidence of nonanemic iron deficiency diagnoses associated with the choice of ferritin cutoff value. However, as Dr. Turégano-Yedro explained, the percentage of patients who have iron deficiency but do not have anemia is not very relevant. “In the case of family physicians in Spain, it is not usually taken into account, because if a patient has iron deficiency with or without anemia and is symptomatic, they should be given iron supplements.”
What if they do not have a deficiency but do have anemia? “In principle, iron supplementation is not necessary, because that anemia may be due to chronic disorders or it may be hemolytic anemia, so the case should be studied,” Dr. Turégano-Yedro concluded.
This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Ferritin is the parameter most often used in primary care to diagnose iron deficiency. The cutoff value of ferritin can affect the number of cases diagnosed, however. A study published in JAMA Network Open investigated how different cutoff values affect the diagnosis of iron deficiency.
The study, which included 255,351 adult primary care patients in Switzerland, showed that ferritin cutoff values of 15, 30, and 45 ng/mL were associated with incidences of iron deficiency diagnoses of 10.9, 29.9, and 48.3 cases per 1000 patient-years, respectively. In other words, as the cutoff value increases, the frequency of diagnosis also increases.
“It is a study to take into account, especially because of the number of patients it includes, and it can guide primary care clinical practice. As expected, as the cutoff point increases with respect to ferritin values, the incidence percentages of both iron deficiency and iron-deficiency anemia also increase,” Miguel Turégano-Yedro, MD, a family physician at the Casar de Cáceres Health Center in Spain, and coordinator of the Hematology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians, told this news organization. Ferritin is the most sensitive parameter for diagnosing iron deficiency and iron-deficiency anemia, he added. “When it is necessary to supplement a patient with iron, other parameters are taken into account, such as hemoglobin, to see if there is anemia.”
Ferritin Level
The ferritin level associated with iron deficiency in primary care is usually 15 ng/mL, said Dr. Turégano-Yedro. “If we assess patients with a ferritin level of 15 or less than 15, then we know that many cases will be symptomatic (with fatigue, tiredness, or lack of appetite) and, therefore, will need iron treatment. But if the ferritin cutoff value is increased to 30 ng/mL or 45 ng/mL, the incidence will be higher, although in many cases they will be asymptomatic and iron supplementation will not be necessary.”
He also pointed out that he does not consider it necessary to raise the cutoff to 45 ng/mL; however, “establishing the cutoff at 30 ng/mL, in a certain population at risk of iron deficiency or iron-deficiency anemia, may be interesting, for example in women of childbearing age, women with very heavy menstruation, children, frail elderly, people with gastrointestinal bleeding, or those who engage in physical exercise.”
Iron deficiency must be distinguished from anemia. “If the ferritin is below 15 ng/mL, there is iron deficiency, which may or may not be accompanied by symptoms, although usually most patients will have symptoms. Normally, to diagnose a patient with iron-deficiency anemia, on the one hand, they must have low hemoglobin, which indicates anemia, and on the other hand, low ferritin, which indicates iron deficiency.” Taking these parameters into account, the study does have a weakness. “It is striking that a percentage of patients in the study requested ferritin analysis without including hemoglobin, when hemoglobin is part of the basic analysis performed in Spain,” said Dr. Turégano-Yedro.
When to Supplement
The study highlights the incidence of nonanemic iron deficiency diagnoses associated with the choice of ferritin cutoff value. However, as Dr. Turégano-Yedro explained, the percentage of patients who have iron deficiency but do not have anemia is not very relevant. “In the case of family physicians in Spain, it is not usually taken into account, because if a patient has iron deficiency with or without anemia and is symptomatic, they should be given iron supplements.”
What if they do not have a deficiency but do have anemia? “In principle, iron supplementation is not necessary, because that anemia may be due to chronic disorders or it may be hemolytic anemia, so the case should be studied,” Dr. Turégano-Yedro concluded.
This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Ferritin is the parameter most often used in primary care to diagnose iron deficiency. The cutoff value of ferritin can affect the number of cases diagnosed, however. A study published in JAMA Network Open investigated how different cutoff values affect the diagnosis of iron deficiency.
The study, which included 255,351 adult primary care patients in Switzerland, showed that ferritin cutoff values of 15, 30, and 45 ng/mL were associated with incidences of iron deficiency diagnoses of 10.9, 29.9, and 48.3 cases per 1000 patient-years, respectively. In other words, as the cutoff value increases, the frequency of diagnosis also increases.
“It is a study to take into account, especially because of the number of patients it includes, and it can guide primary care clinical practice. As expected, as the cutoff point increases with respect to ferritin values, the incidence percentages of both iron deficiency and iron-deficiency anemia also increase,” Miguel Turégano-Yedro, MD, a family physician at the Casar de Cáceres Health Center in Spain, and coordinator of the Hematology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians, told this news organization. Ferritin is the most sensitive parameter for diagnosing iron deficiency and iron-deficiency anemia, he added. “When it is necessary to supplement a patient with iron, other parameters are taken into account, such as hemoglobin, to see if there is anemia.”
Ferritin Level
The ferritin level associated with iron deficiency in primary care is usually 15 ng/mL, said Dr. Turégano-Yedro. “If we assess patients with a ferritin level of 15 or less than 15, then we know that many cases will be symptomatic (with fatigue, tiredness, or lack of appetite) and, therefore, will need iron treatment. But if the ferritin cutoff value is increased to 30 ng/mL or 45 ng/mL, the incidence will be higher, although in many cases they will be asymptomatic and iron supplementation will not be necessary.”
He also pointed out that he does not consider it necessary to raise the cutoff to 45 ng/mL; however, “establishing the cutoff at 30 ng/mL, in a certain population at risk of iron deficiency or iron-deficiency anemia, may be interesting, for example in women of childbearing age, women with very heavy menstruation, children, frail elderly, people with gastrointestinal bleeding, or those who engage in physical exercise.”
Iron deficiency must be distinguished from anemia. “If the ferritin is below 15 ng/mL, there is iron deficiency, which may or may not be accompanied by symptoms, although usually most patients will have symptoms. Normally, to diagnose a patient with iron-deficiency anemia, on the one hand, they must have low hemoglobin, which indicates anemia, and on the other hand, low ferritin, which indicates iron deficiency.” Taking these parameters into account, the study does have a weakness. “It is striking that a percentage of patients in the study requested ferritin analysis without including hemoglobin, when hemoglobin is part of the basic analysis performed in Spain,” said Dr. Turégano-Yedro.
When to Supplement
The study highlights the incidence of nonanemic iron deficiency diagnoses associated with the choice of ferritin cutoff value. However, as Dr. Turégano-Yedro explained, the percentage of patients who have iron deficiency but do not have anemia is not very relevant. “In the case of family physicians in Spain, it is not usually taken into account, because if a patient has iron deficiency with or without anemia and is symptomatic, they should be given iron supplements.”
What if they do not have a deficiency but do have anemia? “In principle, iron supplementation is not necessary, because that anemia may be due to chronic disorders or it may be hemolytic anemia, so the case should be studied,” Dr. Turégano-Yedro concluded.
This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
First Hike of Medicare Funding for Residencies in 25 Years Aims to Help Shortages
Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.
Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.
After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.
Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.
UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.
The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.
In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.
More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.
The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.
In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.
Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
Adding Residency Spots
In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.
“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”
Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.
Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.
Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.
“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.
“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”
The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”
Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
Pushing for More Funds
Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.
“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”
Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”
Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.
AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.
Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”
Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.
Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.
Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.
After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.
Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.
UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.
The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.
In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.
More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.
The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.
In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.
Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
Adding Residency Spots
In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.
“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”
Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.
Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.
Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.
“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.
“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”
The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”
Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
Pushing for More Funds
Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.
“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”
Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”
Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.
AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.
Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”
Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.
Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.
Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.
After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.
Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.
UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.
The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.
In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.
More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.
The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.
In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.
Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
Adding Residency Spots
In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.
“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”
Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.
Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.
Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.
“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.
“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”
The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”
Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
Pushing for More Funds
Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.
“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”
Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”
Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.
AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.
Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”
Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.
Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly 1 in 3 US Adults May Have Low Iron Levels
Nearly one-third of US adults may have low iron levels that can add to problems ranging from fatigue to heart failure.
Researchers in a new study estimated that 7% of US adults have anemia, a blood disorder that can be iron related and is particularly well-known in part because of screenings given during pregnancy. But more striking was the finding in this latest study that a significant portion of the population may have less severe iron deficiencies that have been linked to serious health problems.
The body gets iron from food, and it can store iron for times when there isn’t enough it can access right away. The research team looked at test results that show whether people have enough iron stored, as well as whether their bodies could effectively use available iron. If you don’t have enough iron stored, you have a condition called absolute iron deficiency. And if you have stored iron but problems using it, you have what’s called functional iron deficiency. The study found that an estimated 14% of adults have absolute iron deficiency, and another 15% have functional iron deficiency.
The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are based on data from more than 8,000 people who had laboratory iron levels on file as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that was done from 2017 to 2020.
Besides anemia, iron deficiency is linked to other serious health problems, including restless legs syndrome, mental and thinking difficulties, reduced physical abilities, and heart failure, the authors noted. The effects of iron deficiency can significantly impact a person’s quality of life.
Routine blood work as part of an annual physical doesn’t typically include a check of iron levels unless there is a cause for concern. The out-of-pocket cost without using insurance for a blood test to check iron levels is typically around $60.
“This is a common yet underappreciated public health problem,” study author Leo Buckley, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacology specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told NBC News. “What’s unique about our study is we were looking at regular people who would not otherwise have been screened or tested.”
Treatment for low iron levels can include changes to your diet, as well as intravenous or oral supplements. Taking an iron supplement should be done under the guidance of a health care provider because of the risk of iron toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Nearly one-third of US adults may have low iron levels that can add to problems ranging from fatigue to heart failure.
Researchers in a new study estimated that 7% of US adults have anemia, a blood disorder that can be iron related and is particularly well-known in part because of screenings given during pregnancy. But more striking was the finding in this latest study that a significant portion of the population may have less severe iron deficiencies that have been linked to serious health problems.
The body gets iron from food, and it can store iron for times when there isn’t enough it can access right away. The research team looked at test results that show whether people have enough iron stored, as well as whether their bodies could effectively use available iron. If you don’t have enough iron stored, you have a condition called absolute iron deficiency. And if you have stored iron but problems using it, you have what’s called functional iron deficiency. The study found that an estimated 14% of adults have absolute iron deficiency, and another 15% have functional iron deficiency.
The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are based on data from more than 8,000 people who had laboratory iron levels on file as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that was done from 2017 to 2020.
Besides anemia, iron deficiency is linked to other serious health problems, including restless legs syndrome, mental and thinking difficulties, reduced physical abilities, and heart failure, the authors noted. The effects of iron deficiency can significantly impact a person’s quality of life.
Routine blood work as part of an annual physical doesn’t typically include a check of iron levels unless there is a cause for concern. The out-of-pocket cost without using insurance for a blood test to check iron levels is typically around $60.
“This is a common yet underappreciated public health problem,” study author Leo Buckley, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacology specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told NBC News. “What’s unique about our study is we were looking at regular people who would not otherwise have been screened or tested.”
Treatment for low iron levels can include changes to your diet, as well as intravenous or oral supplements. Taking an iron supplement should be done under the guidance of a health care provider because of the risk of iron toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Nearly one-third of US adults may have low iron levels that can add to problems ranging from fatigue to heart failure.
Researchers in a new study estimated that 7% of US adults have anemia, a blood disorder that can be iron related and is particularly well-known in part because of screenings given during pregnancy. But more striking was the finding in this latest study that a significant portion of the population may have less severe iron deficiencies that have been linked to serious health problems.
The body gets iron from food, and it can store iron for times when there isn’t enough it can access right away. The research team looked at test results that show whether people have enough iron stored, as well as whether their bodies could effectively use available iron. If you don’t have enough iron stored, you have a condition called absolute iron deficiency. And if you have stored iron but problems using it, you have what’s called functional iron deficiency. The study found that an estimated 14% of adults have absolute iron deficiency, and another 15% have functional iron deficiency.
The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are based on data from more than 8,000 people who had laboratory iron levels on file as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that was done from 2017 to 2020.
Besides anemia, iron deficiency is linked to other serious health problems, including restless legs syndrome, mental and thinking difficulties, reduced physical abilities, and heart failure, the authors noted. The effects of iron deficiency can significantly impact a person’s quality of life.
Routine blood work as part of an annual physical doesn’t typically include a check of iron levels unless there is a cause for concern. The out-of-pocket cost without using insurance for a blood test to check iron levels is typically around $60.
“This is a common yet underappreciated public health problem,” study author Leo Buckley, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacology specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told NBC News. “What’s unique about our study is we were looking at regular people who would not otherwise have been screened or tested.”
Treatment for low iron levels can include changes to your diet, as well as intravenous or oral supplements. Taking an iron supplement should be done under the guidance of a health care provider because of the risk of iron toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Dr. Rogers’ Neighborhood: Guinea Pigs and Groundbreaking Cancer Care
Sometimes, however, Dr. Rogers’ guinea pigs pay visits to her workplace. Every Halloween, she dresses them up and shows off their photos to just about everyone. Patients, coworkers, and even random people in the elevator get glimpses of the furry pair, who pose as dinosaurs, bats, aquarium shrimp, sharks, spiders, and bumblebees.
“Being in the hospital is not funny, but guinea pigs dressed up for Halloween is incredibly funny,” Dr. Rogers said. “They make a lot of people smile.”
For physician-scientist Dr. Rogers, a native of suburban Chicago, quality of life for patients is a priority, even when she’s not trying to entertain them and lift their spirits.
The field of hematology “is trying to figure out not only what’s biologically effective for disease, but also what might be best for people living with the condition,” she said. “This is especially true in terms of patient preference for a treatment you complete vs an ongoing or continuous treatment. I really like this idea of having more attention paid to what matters to patients, which the field of medicine sometimes forgets.”
In an interview, Dr. Rogers spoke about the appeal of storytelling in medicine, advances in treatment for CLL and hairy cell leukemia, and the challenges of college football loyalty.
How did you get drawn to medicine?
Ever since I was a kid, I thought, “Oh, I really want to be a doctor. That sounds fun.” At its core, medicine blends things I really like: science, helping people with a problem, and storytelling.
The practice of medicine is a lot about stories — talking to people, figuring out what they’re telling you about what’s going on, then explaining what you know in a way that makes sense to them.
What changes have you seen in leukemia care during your career?
The biggest change is the move from chemotherapies to targeted agents. When I first did a fellowship here at Ohio State, we had studies of ibrutinib, the first-in-class covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. We’d see patients who’d been on chemotherapy for the past 10 or 15 years, and then they got in a clinical trial. Ibrutinib worked better than any of the chemotherapy, and they felt better and had fewer side effects.
Now, chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for CLL, and you can see the impact of targeted agents on the lives of patients. Instead of telling people they need to put aside work and personal plans to take intensive chemotherapy for 6 months, you say: “You’ve got to come to some more appointments to make sure the treatment is going well, and you don’t have too many side effects. But you can expect to continue to work full-time and go to your niece’s wedding out of state or whatever else you want to do.”
What are you most excited about working on?
I’m the principal investigator of a study combining obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, and venetoclax for a fixed duration, a defined treatment course of a little over a year. I just reported the median progression-free survival for phase 2 at the European Hematology Association meeting this spring. It was over 7 years for both patients who had prior treatment and those who hadn’t.
The idea that people could take a year of treatment and get a huge benefit after completing it is quite important. The regimen has gone into phase 3 testing, and we’re now trying to understand the impact in terms of which patients got longer responses or which didn’t.
What are some challenges that remain in CLL?
There are still patients whose CLL becomes resistant to our two most commonly used classes of agents: BTK inhibitors and the BLC2 inhibitor, venetoclax. There are some more BCL2 inhibitors in development, but venetoclax is the only one currently approved.
I am also principal investigator on another study that added venetoclax to ibrutinib when resistance mutations developed that would predict ultimate resistance to ibrutinib. The median progression-free survival in that study was 40.7 months, whereas the expectation with venetoclax alone is 24 months. So, it really improved the amount of time people were in remission. This study is ongoing.
We’ve just started a phase 2 study to have patients take pirtobrutinib, a noncovalent BTK inhibitor, in combination with venetoclax in cases where CLL has become resistant to a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients will take this combination for about a year and a half.
It’s been really exciting to see the impact of some of these combinations both as first-line CLL treatment and in CLL that’s become resistant. But trying to understand what predicts response is a harder thing. I wish I knew the answers for what causes this synergy between those two classes of drugs.
You also specialize in hairy cell leukemia. Could you talk about what it is?
CLL is the most prevalent adult leukemia in the Western world, whereas hairy cell leukemia is very rare. It’s a slow-growing B-cell cancer that got its name because under the microscope, the cells have hairy projections on them.
It had a survival of only about 2-4 years before the development of purine analogs. After a course of pentostatin or cladribine (2-chlordeoxyadenosine), some people never need treatment again in our natural lifespan.
But some patients don’t benefit from purine analogs, either because they have a devastating infection that makes them unsuitable or for another reason. Or they end up needing treatment every 2-3 years, which isn’t something you want to do for 30 years of someone’s lifespan.
What are some challenges in hairy cell leukemia?
It’s a rare condition, so it can be hard to do a really large clinical trial. A lot of physicians think that the prognosis is good and miss out on an opportunity for better treatment and to generate new knowledge.
Also, some people perceive that it’s not actually a problem for people living with it. Cladribine and pentostatin are not terrible chemotherapies, and most people tolerate them very well. But we can make treatment for hairy cell more effective and more tolerable for our patients if we put more effort into researching it.
I’ve heard that you’re a big college football fan. How do you balance your history as a University of Michigan medical school alum with your work for archrival Ohio State?
I went to Northwestern for undergrad, as did several people in my family. So, I usually just claim Northwestern is my football affiliation. It doesn’t inspire much vitriol if you cheer for Northwestern!
And I understand that you live with a pair of guinea pigs. Do tell.
I adopted guinea pigs as pets in medical school. They’re cute and friendly, and they make all this noise for you when you come home. 
Once, one of my clinic patients said, “I don’t want to be your guinea pig.” I thought, “you should be so lucky.” They have quite a lifestyle: They’ve trained me to bring them vegetables, they nap most of the time, and they have a play space, a guinea pig playground.
I thought I liked the guinea pigs more than they liked me. But last fall, I was gone for about 10 days. When I got back, I’d never heard them make so much noise. They were extremely happy to see me. Then for the next 48 hours, one would randomly start whistling for me to come over. I thought, “oh, these things do like me a little bit.”
Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Loxo@Lilly, and Alpine Immune Sciences.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sometimes, however, Dr. Rogers’ guinea pigs pay visits to her workplace. Every Halloween, she dresses them up and shows off their photos to just about everyone. Patients, coworkers, and even random people in the elevator get glimpses of the furry pair, who pose as dinosaurs, bats, aquarium shrimp, sharks, spiders, and bumblebees.
“Being in the hospital is not funny, but guinea pigs dressed up for Halloween is incredibly funny,” Dr. Rogers said. “They make a lot of people smile.”
For physician-scientist Dr. Rogers, a native of suburban Chicago, quality of life for patients is a priority, even when she’s not trying to entertain them and lift their spirits.
The field of hematology “is trying to figure out not only what’s biologically effective for disease, but also what might be best for people living with the condition,” she said. “This is especially true in terms of patient preference for a treatment you complete vs an ongoing or continuous treatment. I really like this idea of having more attention paid to what matters to patients, which the field of medicine sometimes forgets.”
In an interview, Dr. Rogers spoke about the appeal of storytelling in medicine, advances in treatment for CLL and hairy cell leukemia, and the challenges of college football loyalty.
How did you get drawn to medicine?
Ever since I was a kid, I thought, “Oh, I really want to be a doctor. That sounds fun.” At its core, medicine blends things I really like: science, helping people with a problem, and storytelling.
The practice of medicine is a lot about stories — talking to people, figuring out what they’re telling you about what’s going on, then explaining what you know in a way that makes sense to them.
What changes have you seen in leukemia care during your career?
The biggest change is the move from chemotherapies to targeted agents. When I first did a fellowship here at Ohio State, we had studies of ibrutinib, the first-in-class covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. We’d see patients who’d been on chemotherapy for the past 10 or 15 years, and then they got in a clinical trial. Ibrutinib worked better than any of the chemotherapy, and they felt better and had fewer side effects.
Now, chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for CLL, and you can see the impact of targeted agents on the lives of patients. Instead of telling people they need to put aside work and personal plans to take intensive chemotherapy for 6 months, you say: “You’ve got to come to some more appointments to make sure the treatment is going well, and you don’t have too many side effects. But you can expect to continue to work full-time and go to your niece’s wedding out of state or whatever else you want to do.”
What are you most excited about working on?
I’m the principal investigator of a study combining obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, and venetoclax for a fixed duration, a defined treatment course of a little over a year. I just reported the median progression-free survival for phase 2 at the European Hematology Association meeting this spring. It was over 7 years for both patients who had prior treatment and those who hadn’t.
The idea that people could take a year of treatment and get a huge benefit after completing it is quite important. The regimen has gone into phase 3 testing, and we’re now trying to understand the impact in terms of which patients got longer responses or which didn’t.
What are some challenges that remain in CLL?
There are still patients whose CLL becomes resistant to our two most commonly used classes of agents: BTK inhibitors and the BLC2 inhibitor, venetoclax. There are some more BCL2 inhibitors in development, but venetoclax is the only one currently approved.
I am also principal investigator on another study that added venetoclax to ibrutinib when resistance mutations developed that would predict ultimate resistance to ibrutinib. The median progression-free survival in that study was 40.7 months, whereas the expectation with venetoclax alone is 24 months. So, it really improved the amount of time people were in remission. This study is ongoing.
We’ve just started a phase 2 study to have patients take pirtobrutinib, a noncovalent BTK inhibitor, in combination with venetoclax in cases where CLL has become resistant to a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients will take this combination for about a year and a half.
It’s been really exciting to see the impact of some of these combinations both as first-line CLL treatment and in CLL that’s become resistant. But trying to understand what predicts response is a harder thing. I wish I knew the answers for what causes this synergy between those two classes of drugs.
You also specialize in hairy cell leukemia. Could you talk about what it is?
CLL is the most prevalent adult leukemia in the Western world, whereas hairy cell leukemia is very rare. It’s a slow-growing B-cell cancer that got its name because under the microscope, the cells have hairy projections on them.
It had a survival of only about 2-4 years before the development of purine analogs. After a course of pentostatin or cladribine (2-chlordeoxyadenosine), some people never need treatment again in our natural lifespan.
But some patients don’t benefit from purine analogs, either because they have a devastating infection that makes them unsuitable or for another reason. Or they end up needing treatment every 2-3 years, which isn’t something you want to do for 30 years of someone’s lifespan.
What are some challenges in hairy cell leukemia?
It’s a rare condition, so it can be hard to do a really large clinical trial. A lot of physicians think that the prognosis is good and miss out on an opportunity for better treatment and to generate new knowledge.
Also, some people perceive that it’s not actually a problem for people living with it. Cladribine and pentostatin are not terrible chemotherapies, and most people tolerate them very well. But we can make treatment for hairy cell more effective and more tolerable for our patients if we put more effort into researching it.
I’ve heard that you’re a big college football fan. How do you balance your history as a University of Michigan medical school alum with your work for archrival Ohio State?
I went to Northwestern for undergrad, as did several people in my family. So, I usually just claim Northwestern is my football affiliation. It doesn’t inspire much vitriol if you cheer for Northwestern!
And I understand that you live with a pair of guinea pigs. Do tell.
I adopted guinea pigs as pets in medical school. They’re cute and friendly, and they make all this noise for you when you come home.
Once, one of my clinic patients said, “I don’t want to be your guinea pig.” I thought, “you should be so lucky.” They have quite a lifestyle: They’ve trained me to bring them vegetables, they nap most of the time, and they have a play space, a guinea pig playground.
I thought I liked the guinea pigs more than they liked me. But last fall, I was gone for about 10 days. When I got back, I’d never heard them make so much noise. They were extremely happy to see me. Then for the next 48 hours, one would randomly start whistling for me to come over. I thought, “oh, these things do like me a little bit.”
Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Loxo@Lilly, and Alpine Immune Sciences.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sometimes, however, Dr. Rogers’ guinea pigs pay visits to her workplace. Every Halloween, she dresses them up and shows off their photos to just about everyone. Patients, coworkers, and even random people in the elevator get glimpses of the furry pair, who pose as dinosaurs, bats, aquarium shrimp, sharks, spiders, and bumblebees.
“Being in the hospital is not funny, but guinea pigs dressed up for Halloween is incredibly funny,” Dr. Rogers said. “They make a lot of people smile.”
For physician-scientist Dr. Rogers, a native of suburban Chicago, quality of life for patients is a priority, even when she’s not trying to entertain them and lift their spirits.
The field of hematology “is trying to figure out not only what’s biologically effective for disease, but also what might be best for people living with the condition,” she said. “This is especially true in terms of patient preference for a treatment you complete vs an ongoing or continuous treatment. I really like this idea of having more attention paid to what matters to patients, which the field of medicine sometimes forgets.”
In an interview, Dr. Rogers spoke about the appeal of storytelling in medicine, advances in treatment for CLL and hairy cell leukemia, and the challenges of college football loyalty.
How did you get drawn to medicine?
Ever since I was a kid, I thought, “Oh, I really want to be a doctor. That sounds fun.” At its core, medicine blends things I really like: science, helping people with a problem, and storytelling.
The practice of medicine is a lot about stories — talking to people, figuring out what they’re telling you about what’s going on, then explaining what you know in a way that makes sense to them.
What changes have you seen in leukemia care during your career?
The biggest change is the move from chemotherapies to targeted agents. When I first did a fellowship here at Ohio State, we had studies of ibrutinib, the first-in-class covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. We’d see patients who’d been on chemotherapy for the past 10 or 15 years, and then they got in a clinical trial. Ibrutinib worked better than any of the chemotherapy, and they felt better and had fewer side effects.
Now, chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for CLL, and you can see the impact of targeted agents on the lives of patients. Instead of telling people they need to put aside work and personal plans to take intensive chemotherapy for 6 months, you say: “You’ve got to come to some more appointments to make sure the treatment is going well, and you don’t have too many side effects. But you can expect to continue to work full-time and go to your niece’s wedding out of state or whatever else you want to do.”
What are you most excited about working on?
I’m the principal investigator of a study combining obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, and venetoclax for a fixed duration, a defined treatment course of a little over a year. I just reported the median progression-free survival for phase 2 at the European Hematology Association meeting this spring. It was over 7 years for both patients who had prior treatment and those who hadn’t.
The idea that people could take a year of treatment and get a huge benefit after completing it is quite important. The regimen has gone into phase 3 testing, and we’re now trying to understand the impact in terms of which patients got longer responses or which didn’t.
What are some challenges that remain in CLL?
There are still patients whose CLL becomes resistant to our two most commonly used classes of agents: BTK inhibitors and the BLC2 inhibitor, venetoclax. There are some more BCL2 inhibitors in development, but venetoclax is the only one currently approved.
I am also principal investigator on another study that added venetoclax to ibrutinib when resistance mutations developed that would predict ultimate resistance to ibrutinib. The median progression-free survival in that study was 40.7 months, whereas the expectation with venetoclax alone is 24 months. So, it really improved the amount of time people were in remission. This study is ongoing.
We’ve just started a phase 2 study to have patients take pirtobrutinib, a noncovalent BTK inhibitor, in combination with venetoclax in cases where CLL has become resistant to a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients will take this combination for about a year and a half.
It’s been really exciting to see the impact of some of these combinations both as first-line CLL treatment and in CLL that’s become resistant. But trying to understand what predicts response is a harder thing. I wish I knew the answers for what causes this synergy between those two classes of drugs.
You also specialize in hairy cell leukemia. Could you talk about what it is?
CLL is the most prevalent adult leukemia in the Western world, whereas hairy cell leukemia is very rare. It’s a slow-growing B-cell cancer that got its name because under the microscope, the cells have hairy projections on them.
It had a survival of only about 2-4 years before the development of purine analogs. After a course of pentostatin or cladribine (2-chlordeoxyadenosine), some people never need treatment again in our natural lifespan.
But some patients don’t benefit from purine analogs, either because they have a devastating infection that makes them unsuitable or for another reason. Or they end up needing treatment every 2-3 years, which isn’t something you want to do for 30 years of someone’s lifespan.
What are some challenges in hairy cell leukemia?
It’s a rare condition, so it can be hard to do a really large clinical trial. A lot of physicians think that the prognosis is good and miss out on an opportunity for better treatment and to generate new knowledge.
Also, some people perceive that it’s not actually a problem for people living with it. Cladribine and pentostatin are not terrible chemotherapies, and most people tolerate them very well. But we can make treatment for hairy cell more effective and more tolerable for our patients if we put more effort into researching it.
I’ve heard that you’re a big college football fan. How do you balance your history as a University of Michigan medical school alum with your work for archrival Ohio State?
I went to Northwestern for undergrad, as did several people in my family. So, I usually just claim Northwestern is my football affiliation. It doesn’t inspire much vitriol if you cheer for Northwestern!
And I understand that you live with a pair of guinea pigs. Do tell.
I adopted guinea pigs as pets in medical school. They’re cute and friendly, and they make all this noise for you when you come home.
Once, one of my clinic patients said, “I don’t want to be your guinea pig.” I thought, “you should be so lucky.” They have quite a lifestyle: They’ve trained me to bring them vegetables, they nap most of the time, and they have a play space, a guinea pig playground.
I thought I liked the guinea pigs more than they liked me. But last fall, I was gone for about 10 days. When I got back, I’d never heard them make so much noise. They were extremely happy to see me. Then for the next 48 hours, one would randomly start whistling for me to come over. I thought, “oh, these things do like me a little bit.”
Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Loxo@Lilly, and Alpine Immune Sciences.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.