User login
-
Bad breath? Mouthwash is out. Yogurt is in.
Leave the mouthwash. Take the yogurt
Most of us have experienced some sort of bad breath. It’s common in the morning right after waking up, but it also may be a sign for underlying medical issues like dental problems or acid reflux. Wherever it comes from, we always want to get rid of it. A recent meta-analysis in BMJ Open may have found the answer in some common foods.
For those with halitosis, the basic problem is that the bacteria in their mouths are not happy about where they are. The researchers looked at 130 studies and found seven that suggested fermented food has some effect in combating bad breath.
Now when we say fermented food, we’re not talking about that science project waiting to happen in the back of the refrigerator. Think yogurt, sourdough bread, or miso soup. Anything that contains probiotic bacteria.
Matthew J. Messina, DDS, assistant professor of dentistry at Ohio State University, who was not involved with the study, told Healthline that “the whole idea behind probiotics is [bacteria replacement]. Supplant the ‘bad guys’ with the ‘good guys,’ then we’ll end up with a better result.” Essentially balancing the scales in your mouth.
It may not be a long-term solution, Dr. Messina said, but the short-term data are positive. So if you experience bad breath from time to time, try a little bowl of yogurt instead of chewing gum. If nothing else, the bacteria in your mouth will thank you.
You can talk the silly talk, but can you walk the silly walk?
The Ministry of Silly Walks sketch from Monty Python is an enduring comedy classic, and one of surprising relevance for doctors. After all, this isn’t the first time a study has analyzed the unusual strides of Mr. Putey and Mr. Teabag.
The BMJ Christmas edition truly is the gift that keeps on giving. For this plunge into the Flying Circus, the study authors recruited a small group of fairly average adults and had them walk normally around a track for 5 minutes, monitoring their oxygen intake and energy expenditure. After that, the study participants imitated Mr. Putey’s walk and then Mr. Teabag’s.
In the sketch, Mr. Teabag notes that Mr. Putey’s walk is “not particularly silly,” which is borne out in the research. When imitating Mr. Putey’s walk, oxygen intake and energy expenditure were barely higher than a normal walk, not enough to achieve a meaningful difference. Hopefully he’ll get that government grant to further develop his silly walk, because right now Mr. Putey’s walk simply doesn’t cut it.
Mr. Teabag’s walk is a different story and the very image of inefficiency. Oxygen intake was 2.5 times higher than during the normal walk, and energy expenditure was noticeably higher (8 kcal in men and 5.2 kcal in women). In fact, the walk was so inefficient and its effect so drastic it actually reached the level of vigorous exercise. Thanks to this, the study authors noted that just 11 minutes a day of walking like Mr. Teabag would be enough to reach the general goal of 75 minutes of vigorous exercise per week. Boosting that to 12-19 minutes would increase daily energy expenditure by 100 kcal.
The study authors wrote, “Had an initiative to promote inefficient movement been adopted in the early 1970s, we might now be living among a healthier society. Efforts to promote higher energy – and perhaps more joyful – walking should ensure inclusivity and inefficiency for all.” We think they just advocated for a real-life Ministry of Silly Walks. Well, there have been worse ideas. Just look at Twitter.
When efficient gut microbes go bad
With the latest news from the Ministry of Silly Walks, is it time for humans to embrace all things inefficient? Maybe.
Turns out that individuals with more efficient digestive systems – those that extract more energy from the fuel supplied to them by the busy mouths above – tend to gain more weight than those with less efficient guts, even when they eat the same food, according to a recent study published in Microbiome.
The researchers took a look at the composition of gut microbes in a group of 85 volunteers and found that about 40% had microbiomes dominated by Bacteroides bacteria, which are more effective at extracting nutrients from food. That group also weighed 10% more on average, amounting to an extra 9 kg.
In a rather blatant demonstration of efficiency, the investigators also measured the speed of the participants’ digestion, as they had hypothesized that those with the longest digestive travel times would be the ones who harvested the most nutrition from their food. That was not the case.
The study subjects with the most efficient gut bacteria “also have the fastest passage through the gastrointestinal system, which has given us something to think about,” senior author Henrik Roager of the University of Copenhagen said in a written statement.
You know what gives us something to think about? Stool energy density and intestinal transit time and faecal bacterial cell counts, that’s what. Ick. Sometimes science is gross.
Here’s another thought, though: Seeing faecal instead of fecal is kind of funny to our American eyes, but adding that extra letter is also inefficient, which could mean that it’s good. So, in the spirit of embracing the inefficient as a new year begins, we’re resolving to wrap our editorial arms around faecal and the faeces it represents. Well, not literally, of course. More like we’re embracing the spirit of faeces.
Leave the mouthwash. Take the yogurt
Most of us have experienced some sort of bad breath. It’s common in the morning right after waking up, but it also may be a sign for underlying medical issues like dental problems or acid reflux. Wherever it comes from, we always want to get rid of it. A recent meta-analysis in BMJ Open may have found the answer in some common foods.
For those with halitosis, the basic problem is that the bacteria in their mouths are not happy about where they are. The researchers looked at 130 studies and found seven that suggested fermented food has some effect in combating bad breath.
Now when we say fermented food, we’re not talking about that science project waiting to happen in the back of the refrigerator. Think yogurt, sourdough bread, or miso soup. Anything that contains probiotic bacteria.
Matthew J. Messina, DDS, assistant professor of dentistry at Ohio State University, who was not involved with the study, told Healthline that “the whole idea behind probiotics is [bacteria replacement]. Supplant the ‘bad guys’ with the ‘good guys,’ then we’ll end up with a better result.” Essentially balancing the scales in your mouth.
It may not be a long-term solution, Dr. Messina said, but the short-term data are positive. So if you experience bad breath from time to time, try a little bowl of yogurt instead of chewing gum. If nothing else, the bacteria in your mouth will thank you.
You can talk the silly talk, but can you walk the silly walk?
The Ministry of Silly Walks sketch from Monty Python is an enduring comedy classic, and one of surprising relevance for doctors. After all, this isn’t the first time a study has analyzed the unusual strides of Mr. Putey and Mr. Teabag.
The BMJ Christmas edition truly is the gift that keeps on giving. For this plunge into the Flying Circus, the study authors recruited a small group of fairly average adults and had them walk normally around a track for 5 minutes, monitoring their oxygen intake and energy expenditure. After that, the study participants imitated Mr. Putey’s walk and then Mr. Teabag’s.
In the sketch, Mr. Teabag notes that Mr. Putey’s walk is “not particularly silly,” which is borne out in the research. When imitating Mr. Putey’s walk, oxygen intake and energy expenditure were barely higher than a normal walk, not enough to achieve a meaningful difference. Hopefully he’ll get that government grant to further develop his silly walk, because right now Mr. Putey’s walk simply doesn’t cut it.
Mr. Teabag’s walk is a different story and the very image of inefficiency. Oxygen intake was 2.5 times higher than during the normal walk, and energy expenditure was noticeably higher (8 kcal in men and 5.2 kcal in women). In fact, the walk was so inefficient and its effect so drastic it actually reached the level of vigorous exercise. Thanks to this, the study authors noted that just 11 minutes a day of walking like Mr. Teabag would be enough to reach the general goal of 75 minutes of vigorous exercise per week. Boosting that to 12-19 minutes would increase daily energy expenditure by 100 kcal.
The study authors wrote, “Had an initiative to promote inefficient movement been adopted in the early 1970s, we might now be living among a healthier society. Efforts to promote higher energy – and perhaps more joyful – walking should ensure inclusivity and inefficiency for all.” We think they just advocated for a real-life Ministry of Silly Walks. Well, there have been worse ideas. Just look at Twitter.
When efficient gut microbes go bad
With the latest news from the Ministry of Silly Walks, is it time for humans to embrace all things inefficient? Maybe.
Turns out that individuals with more efficient digestive systems – those that extract more energy from the fuel supplied to them by the busy mouths above – tend to gain more weight than those with less efficient guts, even when they eat the same food, according to a recent study published in Microbiome.
The researchers took a look at the composition of gut microbes in a group of 85 volunteers and found that about 40% had microbiomes dominated by Bacteroides bacteria, which are more effective at extracting nutrients from food. That group also weighed 10% more on average, amounting to an extra 9 kg.
In a rather blatant demonstration of efficiency, the investigators also measured the speed of the participants’ digestion, as they had hypothesized that those with the longest digestive travel times would be the ones who harvested the most nutrition from their food. That was not the case.
The study subjects with the most efficient gut bacteria “also have the fastest passage through the gastrointestinal system, which has given us something to think about,” senior author Henrik Roager of the University of Copenhagen said in a written statement.
You know what gives us something to think about? Stool energy density and intestinal transit time and faecal bacterial cell counts, that’s what. Ick. Sometimes science is gross.
Here’s another thought, though: Seeing faecal instead of fecal is kind of funny to our American eyes, but adding that extra letter is also inefficient, which could mean that it’s good. So, in the spirit of embracing the inefficient as a new year begins, we’re resolving to wrap our editorial arms around faecal and the faeces it represents. Well, not literally, of course. More like we’re embracing the spirit of faeces.
Leave the mouthwash. Take the yogurt
Most of us have experienced some sort of bad breath. It’s common in the morning right after waking up, but it also may be a sign for underlying medical issues like dental problems or acid reflux. Wherever it comes from, we always want to get rid of it. A recent meta-analysis in BMJ Open may have found the answer in some common foods.
For those with halitosis, the basic problem is that the bacteria in their mouths are not happy about where they are. The researchers looked at 130 studies and found seven that suggested fermented food has some effect in combating bad breath.
Now when we say fermented food, we’re not talking about that science project waiting to happen in the back of the refrigerator. Think yogurt, sourdough bread, or miso soup. Anything that contains probiotic bacteria.
Matthew J. Messina, DDS, assistant professor of dentistry at Ohio State University, who was not involved with the study, told Healthline that “the whole idea behind probiotics is [bacteria replacement]. Supplant the ‘bad guys’ with the ‘good guys,’ then we’ll end up with a better result.” Essentially balancing the scales in your mouth.
It may not be a long-term solution, Dr. Messina said, but the short-term data are positive. So if you experience bad breath from time to time, try a little bowl of yogurt instead of chewing gum. If nothing else, the bacteria in your mouth will thank you.
You can talk the silly talk, but can you walk the silly walk?
The Ministry of Silly Walks sketch from Monty Python is an enduring comedy classic, and one of surprising relevance for doctors. After all, this isn’t the first time a study has analyzed the unusual strides of Mr. Putey and Mr. Teabag.
The BMJ Christmas edition truly is the gift that keeps on giving. For this plunge into the Flying Circus, the study authors recruited a small group of fairly average adults and had them walk normally around a track for 5 minutes, monitoring their oxygen intake and energy expenditure. After that, the study participants imitated Mr. Putey’s walk and then Mr. Teabag’s.
In the sketch, Mr. Teabag notes that Mr. Putey’s walk is “not particularly silly,” which is borne out in the research. When imitating Mr. Putey’s walk, oxygen intake and energy expenditure were barely higher than a normal walk, not enough to achieve a meaningful difference. Hopefully he’ll get that government grant to further develop his silly walk, because right now Mr. Putey’s walk simply doesn’t cut it.
Mr. Teabag’s walk is a different story and the very image of inefficiency. Oxygen intake was 2.5 times higher than during the normal walk, and energy expenditure was noticeably higher (8 kcal in men and 5.2 kcal in women). In fact, the walk was so inefficient and its effect so drastic it actually reached the level of vigorous exercise. Thanks to this, the study authors noted that just 11 minutes a day of walking like Mr. Teabag would be enough to reach the general goal of 75 minutes of vigorous exercise per week. Boosting that to 12-19 minutes would increase daily energy expenditure by 100 kcal.
The study authors wrote, “Had an initiative to promote inefficient movement been adopted in the early 1970s, we might now be living among a healthier society. Efforts to promote higher energy – and perhaps more joyful – walking should ensure inclusivity and inefficiency for all.” We think they just advocated for a real-life Ministry of Silly Walks. Well, there have been worse ideas. Just look at Twitter.
When efficient gut microbes go bad
With the latest news from the Ministry of Silly Walks, is it time for humans to embrace all things inefficient? Maybe.
Turns out that individuals with more efficient digestive systems – those that extract more energy from the fuel supplied to them by the busy mouths above – tend to gain more weight than those with less efficient guts, even when they eat the same food, according to a recent study published in Microbiome.
The researchers took a look at the composition of gut microbes in a group of 85 volunteers and found that about 40% had microbiomes dominated by Bacteroides bacteria, which are more effective at extracting nutrients from food. That group also weighed 10% more on average, amounting to an extra 9 kg.
In a rather blatant demonstration of efficiency, the investigators also measured the speed of the participants’ digestion, as they had hypothesized that those with the longest digestive travel times would be the ones who harvested the most nutrition from their food. That was not the case.
The study subjects with the most efficient gut bacteria “also have the fastest passage through the gastrointestinal system, which has given us something to think about,” senior author Henrik Roager of the University of Copenhagen said in a written statement.
You know what gives us something to think about? Stool energy density and intestinal transit time and faecal bacterial cell counts, that’s what. Ick. Sometimes science is gross.
Here’s another thought, though: Seeing faecal instead of fecal is kind of funny to our American eyes, but adding that extra letter is also inefficient, which could mean that it’s good. So, in the spirit of embracing the inefficient as a new year begins, we’re resolving to wrap our editorial arms around faecal and the faeces it represents. Well, not literally, of course. More like we’re embracing the spirit of faeces.
Medicare pay cuts partly averted in massive budget bill
Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.
The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.
The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.
Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.
These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as , the AMA said.
“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.
While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.
“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
New health care policies in omnibus
Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:
- Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
- Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
- Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
- Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
- Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
- Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.
FDA’s accelerated approval
The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.
The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.
Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.
Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:
- Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
- Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
- Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.
Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.
The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.
Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.
“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.
The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.
The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.
Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.
These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as , the AMA said.
“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.
While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.
“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
New health care policies in omnibus
Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:
- Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
- Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
- Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
- Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
- Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
- Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.
FDA’s accelerated approval
The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.
The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.
Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.
Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:
- Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
- Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
- Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.
Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.
The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.
Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.
“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.
The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.
The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.
Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.
These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as , the AMA said.
“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.
While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.
“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
New health care policies in omnibus
Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:
- Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
- Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
- Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
- Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
- Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
- Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.
FDA’s accelerated approval
The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.
The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.
Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.
Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:
- Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
- Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
- Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.
Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.
The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.
Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.
“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MD-researcher keeps her eyes on the prize
As a toddler undergoing treatment at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ont., Caroline Diorio, MD, couldn’t grasp what the nice doctors scurrying in and out of her room were doing. She just knew they were taking care of her.
Dr. Diorio had pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), a type of platelet disorder in which the immune system attacks blood platelets for usually unknown reasons.
“I remember very much how worried my parents were,” recalled Dr. Diorio, now a hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “And I remember how the tone of the doctor’s voice and the way the doctors communicated provided so much reassurance to my parents.”
Dr. Diorio’s ITP resolved within a few years, but her experience left a lasting impression.
“From that moment on, I don’t remember a time that I didn’t want to be a doctor,” she said. “I had these really formative experiences with doctors who were so lovely, and I thought, ‘I want to do that.’ ”
Though she considered other specialties in medical school at the University of Toronto, Dr. Diorio kept feeling drawn back to pediatric oncology and hematology.
“I have always loved the commitment that parents have to their kids and the team approach that exists,” she said. “Hematology/oncology allowed me to take care of really sick kids but also have this long-term relationship with them and their parents, which I really value and love.”
Dr. Diorio even completed her residency at McMaster alongside one of the same physicians who had cared for her as a child, Ronald Duncan Barr, MD. “It sort of all came full circle,” she said.
For B-cell ALL and several other blood cancers, an effective option is CAR T-cell therapy, in which physicians collect T-cells from the patient, re-engineer the T cells in the lab so they recognize the proteins expressed on the surface of cancerous cells – called blasts – and then introduce the modified T-cells back into the patient. Once infused, the re-engineered T-cells attack the blasts with the tell-tale proteins.
But with T-ALL, T-cells themselves are infected with cancer, so autologous CAR T-cell therapy is not currently an option, and no allogeneic CAR T-cell therapies have been approved. Dr. Diorio is part of a cutting-edge research team led by David T. Teachey, MD, striving for breakthroughs. “She’s a brilliant clinician, extremely smart and hard-working, exceptional work ethic, great interaction with patients and families with a great bedside manner,” Dr. Teachey said of Dr. Diorio. “She’s just a superstar all around.”
Dr. Teachey first piqued Dr. Diorio’s interest in researching innovative T-ALL therapies when she arrived at CHOP as a hematology/oncology fellow in 2018 and pursued a master of science degree in translational research under his tutelage at the University of Pennsylvania. Then, for a time, the COVID-19 pandemic shut down most research.
“Caroline pivoted and was at the front line, collecting samples and helping with research on SARS-CoV-2 very early in the pandemic,” Dr. Teachey said. “She was able to then pivot back, taking the skills she learned from that work in the pandemic and applying it to what she was doing in the CAR T-cell space and T-ALL.”
Extraordinary gains in pediatric cancer over the past several decades mean that more than 80% of children diagnosed with cancer today will become long-term survivors. “The 20% of the time that we don’t get the result we want is obviously devastating,” Dr. Diorio said. “However, that’s incredibly motivating to try to make better treatments.”
Her current focus is finding a way to use CAR T-cell therapy in children with T-ALL. About 85% of children with T-ALL do well with standard first-line treatments of chemotherapy, but the 15% who relapse or have chemo-refractory disease have a far lower survival rate – less than 30%, Dr. Diorio said.
The problem with autologous CAR T-cell therapy in T-ALL is twofold: It’s difficult to sort out healthy T cells from the cancerous T cells, and the target current re-engineered T-cells go after is on healthy cells, too.
“What happens is a problem called fratricide – basically the CAR T-cells are killing their brothers,” she said. So Dr. Diorio and her colleagues are trying to modify CAR T-cell strategies to target different markers. One target they’re investigating is CD7, but using CRISPR to gene-edit out CD7 from healthy cells requires making two cuts in the DNA.
“Any time you break DNA, you have to repair it, and any time you repair it, there’s a chance of making a mistake,” Dr. Diorio said. So she used a different technique, cytosine-based editing, which requires only one cut. “You put in what you want, and it’s much more precise and less error-prone.” Cytosine-based editing also preserves T cells’ vitality; too many cuts impair T-cell growth, but that doesn’t happen with cytosine-based editing. In August of 2022, Dr. Diorio published a study demonstrating this technique while the team has continued looking for other targets that show up on cancer cells but not on healthy T-cells.
“I’m not invested in one particular strategy,” Dr. Diorio said. “I’m invested in finding a strategy that works for the maximum number of patients.”
That pragmatic approach may be why Dr. Teachey describes her as an out-of-the-box thinker.
“She brings novel ideas to the table, and not everybody who’s a physician-scientist has that ability to really think about taking things in the bench to the bedside and then back again,” Dr. Teachey said. “It’s knowing what questions are important to ask for our patients and how to study those and the research base, so that you can improve treatments for kids with leukemia.”
Their research looks promising so far. Clinical trials are in development for the CD7-targeted CAR T, and they’re collaborating with others on clinical trials for CAR-T targeting another protein, CD38. In the midst of it all, Dr. Diorio remains focused on her patients.
“It’s really a privilege to see the incredible grace people have in these very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Diorio said. “I find it really motivating to try to make things easier for people, and I try to spend every day looking for better treatments so people don’t have to go through that.”
Dr. Diorio has no disclosures. Dr. Teachey has served on the advisory boards of BEAM, Jazz, Janssen, and Sobi and has received research funding from BEAM, Jazz, Servier, and Neoimmune Tech. He has multiple patents pending on CAR-T therapy.
As a toddler undergoing treatment at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ont., Caroline Diorio, MD, couldn’t grasp what the nice doctors scurrying in and out of her room were doing. She just knew they were taking care of her.
Dr. Diorio had pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), a type of platelet disorder in which the immune system attacks blood platelets for usually unknown reasons.
“I remember very much how worried my parents were,” recalled Dr. Diorio, now a hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “And I remember how the tone of the doctor’s voice and the way the doctors communicated provided so much reassurance to my parents.”
Dr. Diorio’s ITP resolved within a few years, but her experience left a lasting impression.
“From that moment on, I don’t remember a time that I didn’t want to be a doctor,” she said. “I had these really formative experiences with doctors who were so lovely, and I thought, ‘I want to do that.’ ”
Though she considered other specialties in medical school at the University of Toronto, Dr. Diorio kept feeling drawn back to pediatric oncology and hematology.
“I have always loved the commitment that parents have to their kids and the team approach that exists,” she said. “Hematology/oncology allowed me to take care of really sick kids but also have this long-term relationship with them and their parents, which I really value and love.”
Dr. Diorio even completed her residency at McMaster alongside one of the same physicians who had cared for her as a child, Ronald Duncan Barr, MD. “It sort of all came full circle,” she said.
For B-cell ALL and several other blood cancers, an effective option is CAR T-cell therapy, in which physicians collect T-cells from the patient, re-engineer the T cells in the lab so they recognize the proteins expressed on the surface of cancerous cells – called blasts – and then introduce the modified T-cells back into the patient. Once infused, the re-engineered T-cells attack the blasts with the tell-tale proteins.
But with T-ALL, T-cells themselves are infected with cancer, so autologous CAR T-cell therapy is not currently an option, and no allogeneic CAR T-cell therapies have been approved. Dr. Diorio is part of a cutting-edge research team led by David T. Teachey, MD, striving for breakthroughs. “She’s a brilliant clinician, extremely smart and hard-working, exceptional work ethic, great interaction with patients and families with a great bedside manner,” Dr. Teachey said of Dr. Diorio. “She’s just a superstar all around.”
Dr. Teachey first piqued Dr. Diorio’s interest in researching innovative T-ALL therapies when she arrived at CHOP as a hematology/oncology fellow in 2018 and pursued a master of science degree in translational research under his tutelage at the University of Pennsylvania. Then, for a time, the COVID-19 pandemic shut down most research.
“Caroline pivoted and was at the front line, collecting samples and helping with research on SARS-CoV-2 very early in the pandemic,” Dr. Teachey said. “She was able to then pivot back, taking the skills she learned from that work in the pandemic and applying it to what she was doing in the CAR T-cell space and T-ALL.”
Extraordinary gains in pediatric cancer over the past several decades mean that more than 80% of children diagnosed with cancer today will become long-term survivors. “The 20% of the time that we don’t get the result we want is obviously devastating,” Dr. Diorio said. “However, that’s incredibly motivating to try to make better treatments.”
Her current focus is finding a way to use CAR T-cell therapy in children with T-ALL. About 85% of children with T-ALL do well with standard first-line treatments of chemotherapy, but the 15% who relapse or have chemo-refractory disease have a far lower survival rate – less than 30%, Dr. Diorio said.
The problem with autologous CAR T-cell therapy in T-ALL is twofold: It’s difficult to sort out healthy T cells from the cancerous T cells, and the target current re-engineered T-cells go after is on healthy cells, too.
“What happens is a problem called fratricide – basically the CAR T-cells are killing their brothers,” she said. So Dr. Diorio and her colleagues are trying to modify CAR T-cell strategies to target different markers. One target they’re investigating is CD7, but using CRISPR to gene-edit out CD7 from healthy cells requires making two cuts in the DNA.
“Any time you break DNA, you have to repair it, and any time you repair it, there’s a chance of making a mistake,” Dr. Diorio said. So she used a different technique, cytosine-based editing, which requires only one cut. “You put in what you want, and it’s much more precise and less error-prone.” Cytosine-based editing also preserves T cells’ vitality; too many cuts impair T-cell growth, but that doesn’t happen with cytosine-based editing. In August of 2022, Dr. Diorio published a study demonstrating this technique while the team has continued looking for other targets that show up on cancer cells but not on healthy T-cells.
“I’m not invested in one particular strategy,” Dr. Diorio said. “I’m invested in finding a strategy that works for the maximum number of patients.”
That pragmatic approach may be why Dr. Teachey describes her as an out-of-the-box thinker.
“She brings novel ideas to the table, and not everybody who’s a physician-scientist has that ability to really think about taking things in the bench to the bedside and then back again,” Dr. Teachey said. “It’s knowing what questions are important to ask for our patients and how to study those and the research base, so that you can improve treatments for kids with leukemia.”
Their research looks promising so far. Clinical trials are in development for the CD7-targeted CAR T, and they’re collaborating with others on clinical trials for CAR-T targeting another protein, CD38. In the midst of it all, Dr. Diorio remains focused on her patients.
“It’s really a privilege to see the incredible grace people have in these very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Diorio said. “I find it really motivating to try to make things easier for people, and I try to spend every day looking for better treatments so people don’t have to go through that.”
Dr. Diorio has no disclosures. Dr. Teachey has served on the advisory boards of BEAM, Jazz, Janssen, and Sobi and has received research funding from BEAM, Jazz, Servier, and Neoimmune Tech. He has multiple patents pending on CAR-T therapy.
As a toddler undergoing treatment at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ont., Caroline Diorio, MD, couldn’t grasp what the nice doctors scurrying in and out of her room were doing. She just knew they were taking care of her.
Dr. Diorio had pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), a type of platelet disorder in which the immune system attacks blood platelets for usually unknown reasons.
“I remember very much how worried my parents were,” recalled Dr. Diorio, now a hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “And I remember how the tone of the doctor’s voice and the way the doctors communicated provided so much reassurance to my parents.”
Dr. Diorio’s ITP resolved within a few years, but her experience left a lasting impression.
“From that moment on, I don’t remember a time that I didn’t want to be a doctor,” she said. “I had these really formative experiences with doctors who were so lovely, and I thought, ‘I want to do that.’ ”
Though she considered other specialties in medical school at the University of Toronto, Dr. Diorio kept feeling drawn back to pediatric oncology and hematology.
“I have always loved the commitment that parents have to their kids and the team approach that exists,” she said. “Hematology/oncology allowed me to take care of really sick kids but also have this long-term relationship with them and their parents, which I really value and love.”
Dr. Diorio even completed her residency at McMaster alongside one of the same physicians who had cared for her as a child, Ronald Duncan Barr, MD. “It sort of all came full circle,” she said.
For B-cell ALL and several other blood cancers, an effective option is CAR T-cell therapy, in which physicians collect T-cells from the patient, re-engineer the T cells in the lab so they recognize the proteins expressed on the surface of cancerous cells – called blasts – and then introduce the modified T-cells back into the patient. Once infused, the re-engineered T-cells attack the blasts with the tell-tale proteins.
But with T-ALL, T-cells themselves are infected with cancer, so autologous CAR T-cell therapy is not currently an option, and no allogeneic CAR T-cell therapies have been approved. Dr. Diorio is part of a cutting-edge research team led by David T. Teachey, MD, striving for breakthroughs. “She’s a brilliant clinician, extremely smart and hard-working, exceptional work ethic, great interaction with patients and families with a great bedside manner,” Dr. Teachey said of Dr. Diorio. “She’s just a superstar all around.”
Dr. Teachey first piqued Dr. Diorio’s interest in researching innovative T-ALL therapies when she arrived at CHOP as a hematology/oncology fellow in 2018 and pursued a master of science degree in translational research under his tutelage at the University of Pennsylvania. Then, for a time, the COVID-19 pandemic shut down most research.
“Caroline pivoted and was at the front line, collecting samples and helping with research on SARS-CoV-2 very early in the pandemic,” Dr. Teachey said. “She was able to then pivot back, taking the skills she learned from that work in the pandemic and applying it to what she was doing in the CAR T-cell space and T-ALL.”
Extraordinary gains in pediatric cancer over the past several decades mean that more than 80% of children diagnosed with cancer today will become long-term survivors. “The 20% of the time that we don’t get the result we want is obviously devastating,” Dr. Diorio said. “However, that’s incredibly motivating to try to make better treatments.”
Her current focus is finding a way to use CAR T-cell therapy in children with T-ALL. About 85% of children with T-ALL do well with standard first-line treatments of chemotherapy, but the 15% who relapse or have chemo-refractory disease have a far lower survival rate – less than 30%, Dr. Diorio said.
The problem with autologous CAR T-cell therapy in T-ALL is twofold: It’s difficult to sort out healthy T cells from the cancerous T cells, and the target current re-engineered T-cells go after is on healthy cells, too.
“What happens is a problem called fratricide – basically the CAR T-cells are killing their brothers,” she said. So Dr. Diorio and her colleagues are trying to modify CAR T-cell strategies to target different markers. One target they’re investigating is CD7, but using CRISPR to gene-edit out CD7 from healthy cells requires making two cuts in the DNA.
“Any time you break DNA, you have to repair it, and any time you repair it, there’s a chance of making a mistake,” Dr. Diorio said. So she used a different technique, cytosine-based editing, which requires only one cut. “You put in what you want, and it’s much more precise and less error-prone.” Cytosine-based editing also preserves T cells’ vitality; too many cuts impair T-cell growth, but that doesn’t happen with cytosine-based editing. In August of 2022, Dr. Diorio published a study demonstrating this technique while the team has continued looking for other targets that show up on cancer cells but not on healthy T-cells.
“I’m not invested in one particular strategy,” Dr. Diorio said. “I’m invested in finding a strategy that works for the maximum number of patients.”
That pragmatic approach may be why Dr. Teachey describes her as an out-of-the-box thinker.
“She brings novel ideas to the table, and not everybody who’s a physician-scientist has that ability to really think about taking things in the bench to the bedside and then back again,” Dr. Teachey said. “It’s knowing what questions are important to ask for our patients and how to study those and the research base, so that you can improve treatments for kids with leukemia.”
Their research looks promising so far. Clinical trials are in development for the CD7-targeted CAR T, and they’re collaborating with others on clinical trials for CAR-T targeting another protein, CD38. In the midst of it all, Dr. Diorio remains focused on her patients.
“It’s really a privilege to see the incredible grace people have in these very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Diorio said. “I find it really motivating to try to make things easier for people, and I try to spend every day looking for better treatments so people don’t have to go through that.”
Dr. Diorio has no disclosures. Dr. Teachey has served on the advisory boards of BEAM, Jazz, Janssen, and Sobi and has received research funding from BEAM, Jazz, Servier, and Neoimmune Tech. He has multiple patents pending on CAR-T therapy.
FDA approves first-in-class drug for follicular lymphoma
This product is a first-in-class bispecific antibody that is designed to target CD20 on the surface of B cells and CD3 on the surface of T cells. This dual targeting activates and redirects a patient’s existing T cells to engage and eliminate target B cells by releasing cytotoxic proteins into the B cells, according to the manufacturer, Genentech.
Mosunetuzumab-axgb is administered as an intravenous infusion for a fixed duration, which allows for time off therapy, and can be infused in an outpatient setting, the company noted.
The drug was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response rate data from the phase 2 GO29781 trial. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the company noted.
The GO29781 study was carried out in individuals with pretreated follicular lymphoma, including those who were at high risk for disease progression or whose disease was refractory to prior therapies.
A complete response was achieved in 60% of patients (54 of 90).
An objective response rate (a combination of complete and partial responses) was seen in 80% of patients who received the drug, with a majority maintaining responses for at least 18 months.
The median duration of response among those who responded was 22.8 months.
Safety data come from 218 patients with hematologic cancers who received mosunetuzumab-axgb at the recommended dose. The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (39%), which can be severe and life-threatening. The median duration of cytokine release syndrome events was 3 days (range, 1-29 days). Other common adverse events (≥ 20%) included fatigue, rash, pyrexia, and headache.
“This approval is a significant milestone for people with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, who have had limited treatment options until now,” said Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from the City of Hope, Los Angeles, division of lymphoma, and clinical trial investigator.
Dr. Budde presented data on mosunetuzumab-axgb at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported by this news organization.
She noted that the 60% complete response rate seen with this new drug contrasts with the 14% that has been seen for historical controls.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented at the time.
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization at the time that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent – if it does get approval – it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This product is a first-in-class bispecific antibody that is designed to target CD20 on the surface of B cells and CD3 on the surface of T cells. This dual targeting activates and redirects a patient’s existing T cells to engage and eliminate target B cells by releasing cytotoxic proteins into the B cells, according to the manufacturer, Genentech.
Mosunetuzumab-axgb is administered as an intravenous infusion for a fixed duration, which allows for time off therapy, and can be infused in an outpatient setting, the company noted.
The drug was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response rate data from the phase 2 GO29781 trial. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the company noted.
The GO29781 study was carried out in individuals with pretreated follicular lymphoma, including those who were at high risk for disease progression or whose disease was refractory to prior therapies.
A complete response was achieved in 60% of patients (54 of 90).
An objective response rate (a combination of complete and partial responses) was seen in 80% of patients who received the drug, with a majority maintaining responses for at least 18 months.
The median duration of response among those who responded was 22.8 months.
Safety data come from 218 patients with hematologic cancers who received mosunetuzumab-axgb at the recommended dose. The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (39%), which can be severe and life-threatening. The median duration of cytokine release syndrome events was 3 days (range, 1-29 days). Other common adverse events (≥ 20%) included fatigue, rash, pyrexia, and headache.
“This approval is a significant milestone for people with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, who have had limited treatment options until now,” said Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from the City of Hope, Los Angeles, division of lymphoma, and clinical trial investigator.
Dr. Budde presented data on mosunetuzumab-axgb at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported by this news organization.
She noted that the 60% complete response rate seen with this new drug contrasts with the 14% that has been seen for historical controls.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented at the time.
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization at the time that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent – if it does get approval – it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This product is a first-in-class bispecific antibody that is designed to target CD20 on the surface of B cells and CD3 on the surface of T cells. This dual targeting activates and redirects a patient’s existing T cells to engage and eliminate target B cells by releasing cytotoxic proteins into the B cells, according to the manufacturer, Genentech.
Mosunetuzumab-axgb is administered as an intravenous infusion for a fixed duration, which allows for time off therapy, and can be infused in an outpatient setting, the company noted.
The drug was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response rate data from the phase 2 GO29781 trial. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the company noted.
The GO29781 study was carried out in individuals with pretreated follicular lymphoma, including those who were at high risk for disease progression or whose disease was refractory to prior therapies.
A complete response was achieved in 60% of patients (54 of 90).
An objective response rate (a combination of complete and partial responses) was seen in 80% of patients who received the drug, with a majority maintaining responses for at least 18 months.
The median duration of response among those who responded was 22.8 months.
Safety data come from 218 patients with hematologic cancers who received mosunetuzumab-axgb at the recommended dose. The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (39%), which can be severe and life-threatening. The median duration of cytokine release syndrome events was 3 days (range, 1-29 days). Other common adverse events (≥ 20%) included fatigue, rash, pyrexia, and headache.
“This approval is a significant milestone for people with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, who have had limited treatment options until now,” said Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from the City of Hope, Los Angeles, division of lymphoma, and clinical trial investigator.
Dr. Budde presented data on mosunetuzumab-axgb at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported by this news organization.
She noted that the 60% complete response rate seen with this new drug contrasts with the 14% that has been seen for historical controls.
“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented at the time.
A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization at the time that he was favorably impressed by the findings.
“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University in St. Louis.
“I think as a single agent – if it does get approval – it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MCL: Event-free survival at 2 years bodes well
In this era of efficacious treatments for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), patients who survive 2 years sans disease recurrence or progression live nearly as long as age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population, a recent study showed.
Patients with MCL who achieved this endpoint – event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) – also had a low risk of lymphoma-related death, and most often died from unrelated causes, according to results of the prospective cohort study.
Although longer follow-up and confirmation from other study groups are needed, these findings demonstrated a prognostic role for EFS24 in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to the lead author, Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist with Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
As more effective therapies emerge, overall survival (OS) will likely continue to improve, such that EFS24 will may become an important clinical endpoint in MCL frontline therapy, according to Dr. Wang.
“When we counseled patients with newly diagnosed MCL, we used to tell them that this is an aggressive and incurable disease, and patients would feel bad about it, “ Dr. Wang said in an interview.
“Now that we have better therapy, and outcomes are improving,” he continued, “I think it’s important to tell our patients now that we have improved outcomes for patients with this disease, and things are probably going to get better in the future, to always remain hopeful. That’s powerful for our patients to know.”
Two eras of treatment
The current analysis by Dr. Wang and colleagues was based on patients identified in the Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource Cohort Study, a prospective observational study of lymphoma patients evaluated at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa.
The patients were divided into two “eras” of treatment, based on the date of enrollment. Era 1 of enrollment was 2002 to 2009, and Era 2 was 2010 to 2015.
Patients in Era 2 had a substantially improved EFS and OS compared with those in Era 1, according to a previous report from Dr. Wang and coauthors.
Those improved treatment outcomes were likely due to advances in frontline immunochemotherapy, the authors said in that report. In particular, they pointed to the use of highly effective induction regimens containing high-dose cytarabine in patients who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation, and the combined use of rituximab-bendamustine in patients who were not eligible for transplant.
In addition, the increased use of salvage treatments such as lenalidomide and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors has likely contributed to improvements in outcomes across eras, Dr. Wang and coauthors said in the present report, which looks more closely at the prognostic role of the EFS24 endpoint in Era 1 and Era 2 patients.
The five-year OS for patients diagnosed in Era 2 was 68.4%, compared with 59.2% in Era 1, the authors reported.
Achieving 2 years of EFS had no impact on OS in the earlier era, their findings further show.
In Era 1, the 98 patients who achieved EFS24 went on to have inferior OS compared with the general population, while in Era 2, the 99 patients achieving EFS24 had similar OS compared with the general population.
This was reported as a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in Era 1 of 2.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.92; P < .001). By contrast, the SMR in Era 2 was just 1.31 (95% CI, 0.78-2.07; P = .31).
The risk of dying from lymphoma was lower among patients achieving EFS24 in the more recent Era 2, the results showed.
Among patients in Era 1 achieving EFS24, the primary cause of death was lymphoma-related, and the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 19.8%, versus 6.2% for causes of death unrelated to lymphoma.
By contrast, among patients in Era 2 achieving EFS24, the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 2.1% and 5.5% for other causes.
Favorable prognosis
These findings clearly showed that in one cohort of patients with MCL treated in the recent past, those patients going 2 years without evidence of disease progression or events “have a great prognosis,” said Matthew Matasar, MD, MS, chief of blood disorders, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and RWJBarnabas Health.
However, there are limitations to describing the role of EFS24 in MCL based solely on this single-cohort study, Dr. Matasar said in an interview.
“There’s a lot of heterogeneity in how we treat mantle cell lymphoma,” he said, “so I would just caution generalizing out of a patient population treated one way to populations that may receive quite different therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Wang said he and his coinvestigators have several confirmatory studies in the works that are focused on other groups of patients both inside and outside the United States, to validate of EFS24 as an endpoint.
“We have at least four cohorts to look into this and see whether we can see the same or similar results,” he said in the interview.
Dr. Wang disclosed ties with Incyte, InnoCare, LOXO Oncology, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Genmab, and Kite.
In this era of efficacious treatments for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), patients who survive 2 years sans disease recurrence or progression live nearly as long as age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population, a recent study showed.
Patients with MCL who achieved this endpoint – event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) – also had a low risk of lymphoma-related death, and most often died from unrelated causes, according to results of the prospective cohort study.
Although longer follow-up and confirmation from other study groups are needed, these findings demonstrated a prognostic role for EFS24 in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to the lead author, Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist with Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
As more effective therapies emerge, overall survival (OS) will likely continue to improve, such that EFS24 will may become an important clinical endpoint in MCL frontline therapy, according to Dr. Wang.
“When we counseled patients with newly diagnosed MCL, we used to tell them that this is an aggressive and incurable disease, and patients would feel bad about it, “ Dr. Wang said in an interview.
“Now that we have better therapy, and outcomes are improving,” he continued, “I think it’s important to tell our patients now that we have improved outcomes for patients with this disease, and things are probably going to get better in the future, to always remain hopeful. That’s powerful for our patients to know.”
Two eras of treatment
The current analysis by Dr. Wang and colleagues was based on patients identified in the Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource Cohort Study, a prospective observational study of lymphoma patients evaluated at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa.
The patients were divided into two “eras” of treatment, based on the date of enrollment. Era 1 of enrollment was 2002 to 2009, and Era 2 was 2010 to 2015.
Patients in Era 2 had a substantially improved EFS and OS compared with those in Era 1, according to a previous report from Dr. Wang and coauthors.
Those improved treatment outcomes were likely due to advances in frontline immunochemotherapy, the authors said in that report. In particular, they pointed to the use of highly effective induction regimens containing high-dose cytarabine in patients who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation, and the combined use of rituximab-bendamustine in patients who were not eligible for transplant.
In addition, the increased use of salvage treatments such as lenalidomide and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors has likely contributed to improvements in outcomes across eras, Dr. Wang and coauthors said in the present report, which looks more closely at the prognostic role of the EFS24 endpoint in Era 1 and Era 2 patients.
The five-year OS for patients diagnosed in Era 2 was 68.4%, compared with 59.2% in Era 1, the authors reported.
Achieving 2 years of EFS had no impact on OS in the earlier era, their findings further show.
In Era 1, the 98 patients who achieved EFS24 went on to have inferior OS compared with the general population, while in Era 2, the 99 patients achieving EFS24 had similar OS compared with the general population.
This was reported as a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in Era 1 of 2.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.92; P < .001). By contrast, the SMR in Era 2 was just 1.31 (95% CI, 0.78-2.07; P = .31).
The risk of dying from lymphoma was lower among patients achieving EFS24 in the more recent Era 2, the results showed.
Among patients in Era 1 achieving EFS24, the primary cause of death was lymphoma-related, and the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 19.8%, versus 6.2% for causes of death unrelated to lymphoma.
By contrast, among patients in Era 2 achieving EFS24, the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 2.1% and 5.5% for other causes.
Favorable prognosis
These findings clearly showed that in one cohort of patients with MCL treated in the recent past, those patients going 2 years without evidence of disease progression or events “have a great prognosis,” said Matthew Matasar, MD, MS, chief of blood disorders, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and RWJBarnabas Health.
However, there are limitations to describing the role of EFS24 in MCL based solely on this single-cohort study, Dr. Matasar said in an interview.
“There’s a lot of heterogeneity in how we treat mantle cell lymphoma,” he said, “so I would just caution generalizing out of a patient population treated one way to populations that may receive quite different therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Wang said he and his coinvestigators have several confirmatory studies in the works that are focused on other groups of patients both inside and outside the United States, to validate of EFS24 as an endpoint.
“We have at least four cohorts to look into this and see whether we can see the same or similar results,” he said in the interview.
Dr. Wang disclosed ties with Incyte, InnoCare, LOXO Oncology, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Genmab, and Kite.
In this era of efficacious treatments for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), patients who survive 2 years sans disease recurrence or progression live nearly as long as age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population, a recent study showed.
Patients with MCL who achieved this endpoint – event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) – also had a low risk of lymphoma-related death, and most often died from unrelated causes, according to results of the prospective cohort study.
Although longer follow-up and confirmation from other study groups are needed, these findings demonstrated a prognostic role for EFS24 in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to the lead author, Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist with Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
As more effective therapies emerge, overall survival (OS) will likely continue to improve, such that EFS24 will may become an important clinical endpoint in MCL frontline therapy, according to Dr. Wang.
“When we counseled patients with newly diagnosed MCL, we used to tell them that this is an aggressive and incurable disease, and patients would feel bad about it, “ Dr. Wang said in an interview.
“Now that we have better therapy, and outcomes are improving,” he continued, “I think it’s important to tell our patients now that we have improved outcomes for patients with this disease, and things are probably going to get better in the future, to always remain hopeful. That’s powerful for our patients to know.”
Two eras of treatment
The current analysis by Dr. Wang and colleagues was based on patients identified in the Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource Cohort Study, a prospective observational study of lymphoma patients evaluated at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa.
The patients were divided into two “eras” of treatment, based on the date of enrollment. Era 1 of enrollment was 2002 to 2009, and Era 2 was 2010 to 2015.
Patients in Era 2 had a substantially improved EFS and OS compared with those in Era 1, according to a previous report from Dr. Wang and coauthors.
Those improved treatment outcomes were likely due to advances in frontline immunochemotherapy, the authors said in that report. In particular, they pointed to the use of highly effective induction regimens containing high-dose cytarabine in patients who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation, and the combined use of rituximab-bendamustine in patients who were not eligible for transplant.
In addition, the increased use of salvage treatments such as lenalidomide and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors has likely contributed to improvements in outcomes across eras, Dr. Wang and coauthors said in the present report, which looks more closely at the prognostic role of the EFS24 endpoint in Era 1 and Era 2 patients.
The five-year OS for patients diagnosed in Era 2 was 68.4%, compared with 59.2% in Era 1, the authors reported.
Achieving 2 years of EFS had no impact on OS in the earlier era, their findings further show.
In Era 1, the 98 patients who achieved EFS24 went on to have inferior OS compared with the general population, while in Era 2, the 99 patients achieving EFS24 had similar OS compared with the general population.
This was reported as a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in Era 1 of 2.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.92; P < .001). By contrast, the SMR in Era 2 was just 1.31 (95% CI, 0.78-2.07; P = .31).
The risk of dying from lymphoma was lower among patients achieving EFS24 in the more recent Era 2, the results showed.
Among patients in Era 1 achieving EFS24, the primary cause of death was lymphoma-related, and the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 19.8%, versus 6.2% for causes of death unrelated to lymphoma.
By contrast, among patients in Era 2 achieving EFS24, the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 2.1% and 5.5% for other causes.
Favorable prognosis
These findings clearly showed that in one cohort of patients with MCL treated in the recent past, those patients going 2 years without evidence of disease progression or events “have a great prognosis,” said Matthew Matasar, MD, MS, chief of blood disorders, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and RWJBarnabas Health.
However, there are limitations to describing the role of EFS24 in MCL based solely on this single-cohort study, Dr. Matasar said in an interview.
“There’s a lot of heterogeneity in how we treat mantle cell lymphoma,” he said, “so I would just caution generalizing out of a patient population treated one way to populations that may receive quite different therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Wang said he and his coinvestigators have several confirmatory studies in the works that are focused on other groups of patients both inside and outside the United States, to validate of EFS24 as an endpoint.
“We have at least four cohorts to look into this and see whether we can see the same or similar results,” he said in the interview.
Dr. Wang disclosed ties with Incyte, InnoCare, LOXO Oncology, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Genmab, and Kite.
FROM CLINICAL LYMPHOMA, MYELOMA AND LEUKEMIA
COVID update: ASH experts discuss thrombosis, immunity
NEW ORLEANS –
In a presidential symposium at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, La Jolla Institute of Immunology scientist Shane Crotty, PhD, explained that COVID-19 has a “superpower” that allows it to be “extraordinarily stealthy.”
The virus, he said, can sneak past the body’s innate immune system, which normally responds to viral invaders within minutes to hours. “This is why you have people with high viral loads who are presymptomatic. Their innate immune system hasn’t even recognized that these people are infected.”
The adaptive immune system kicks in later. As Dr. Crotty noted, adaptive immunity is composed of three branches: B cells (the source of antibodies), CD4 “helper” T cells, and CD8 “killer” T cells. In the first year of COVID-19, his team tracked 188 subjects post infection in what he said was the largest study of its kind ever for any viral infection.
“In 8 months, 95% of people who had been infected still had measurable immune memory. In fact, most of them had multiple different compartments of immune memory still detectable, and it was likely that these individuals would still have that memory years into the future. Based on that, we made the prediction that most people who have had COVID-19 would likely be protected from reinfection – at least by severe infections – for 3 years into the future. That prediction has widely held up even in the presence of variants which weren’t around at the time.”
How do vaccines fit into the immunity picture? Dr. Crotty’s lab has tracked subjects who received 4 vaccines – Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax. Researchers found that the mRNA vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, “are fantastic at eliciting neutralizing antibodies quickly, but then they drop off rapidly at two doses and actually continue to drop for 10 months.”
Still, he said, “when we take a look at 6 months, actually the vaccines are doing pretty incredibly well. If we compare them to an average infected individual, the mRNA vaccines all have higher neutralizing antibody titers.”
What’s happening? According to Dr. Crotty, B cells are “making guesses about what other variants might look like.” But he said research suggests that an important component of this process – germinal centers – aren’t made in some vaccinated people who are immunocompromised. (Germinal centers have been described as “microbial boot camps” for B cells.)
The good news, Dr. Crotty noted, is that a greater understanding of how COVID-19 penetrates various layers of adaptive immune defenses will lead to better ways to protect the immunocompromised. “If you think about immunity in this layered defense way, there are various ways that it could be enhanced for individuals in different categories,” he said.
Hematologist Beverley J. Hunt, MD, OBE, of St. Thomas’ Hospital/King’s Healthcare Partners in London, spoke at the ASH presidential symposium about blood clots and COVID-19. As she noted, concern arose about vaccine-related blood clots. A British team “managed quickly to come up with a diagnostic criteria,” she said. “We looked at nearly 300 patients and essentially came up with a scoring system.”
The diagnostic criteria was based on an analysis of definite or probable cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) – all related to the AstraZeneca vaccine. The criteria appeared in a 2021 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The report’s data didn’t allow it to compare the efficacy of anticoagulants. However, Dr. Hunt noted that clinicians turned to plasma exchange in patients with low platelet counts and extensive thrombosis. The report stated “survival after plasma exchange was 90%, considerably better than would be predicted given the baseline characteristics.”
“Now we’re following up,” Dr. Hunt said. One question to answer: Is long-term anticoagulation helpful? “We have many patients,” she said, “who are taking an anti-platelet factor out of habit.”
Dr. Crotty and Dr. Hunt report no disclosures. This reporter is a paid participant in a COVID vaccine study run by Dr. Crotty’s lab.
NEW ORLEANS –
In a presidential symposium at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, La Jolla Institute of Immunology scientist Shane Crotty, PhD, explained that COVID-19 has a “superpower” that allows it to be “extraordinarily stealthy.”
The virus, he said, can sneak past the body’s innate immune system, which normally responds to viral invaders within minutes to hours. “This is why you have people with high viral loads who are presymptomatic. Their innate immune system hasn’t even recognized that these people are infected.”
The adaptive immune system kicks in later. As Dr. Crotty noted, adaptive immunity is composed of three branches: B cells (the source of antibodies), CD4 “helper” T cells, and CD8 “killer” T cells. In the first year of COVID-19, his team tracked 188 subjects post infection in what he said was the largest study of its kind ever for any viral infection.
“In 8 months, 95% of people who had been infected still had measurable immune memory. In fact, most of them had multiple different compartments of immune memory still detectable, and it was likely that these individuals would still have that memory years into the future. Based on that, we made the prediction that most people who have had COVID-19 would likely be protected from reinfection – at least by severe infections – for 3 years into the future. That prediction has widely held up even in the presence of variants which weren’t around at the time.”
How do vaccines fit into the immunity picture? Dr. Crotty’s lab has tracked subjects who received 4 vaccines – Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax. Researchers found that the mRNA vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, “are fantastic at eliciting neutralizing antibodies quickly, but then they drop off rapidly at two doses and actually continue to drop for 10 months.”
Still, he said, “when we take a look at 6 months, actually the vaccines are doing pretty incredibly well. If we compare them to an average infected individual, the mRNA vaccines all have higher neutralizing antibody titers.”
What’s happening? According to Dr. Crotty, B cells are “making guesses about what other variants might look like.” But he said research suggests that an important component of this process – germinal centers – aren’t made in some vaccinated people who are immunocompromised. (Germinal centers have been described as “microbial boot camps” for B cells.)
The good news, Dr. Crotty noted, is that a greater understanding of how COVID-19 penetrates various layers of adaptive immune defenses will lead to better ways to protect the immunocompromised. “If you think about immunity in this layered defense way, there are various ways that it could be enhanced for individuals in different categories,” he said.
Hematologist Beverley J. Hunt, MD, OBE, of St. Thomas’ Hospital/King’s Healthcare Partners in London, spoke at the ASH presidential symposium about blood clots and COVID-19. As she noted, concern arose about vaccine-related blood clots. A British team “managed quickly to come up with a diagnostic criteria,” she said. “We looked at nearly 300 patients and essentially came up with a scoring system.”
The diagnostic criteria was based on an analysis of definite or probable cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) – all related to the AstraZeneca vaccine. The criteria appeared in a 2021 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The report’s data didn’t allow it to compare the efficacy of anticoagulants. However, Dr. Hunt noted that clinicians turned to plasma exchange in patients with low platelet counts and extensive thrombosis. The report stated “survival after plasma exchange was 90%, considerably better than would be predicted given the baseline characteristics.”
“Now we’re following up,” Dr. Hunt said. One question to answer: Is long-term anticoagulation helpful? “We have many patients,” she said, “who are taking an anti-platelet factor out of habit.”
Dr. Crotty and Dr. Hunt report no disclosures. This reporter is a paid participant in a COVID vaccine study run by Dr. Crotty’s lab.
NEW ORLEANS –
In a presidential symposium at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, La Jolla Institute of Immunology scientist Shane Crotty, PhD, explained that COVID-19 has a “superpower” that allows it to be “extraordinarily stealthy.”
The virus, he said, can sneak past the body’s innate immune system, which normally responds to viral invaders within minutes to hours. “This is why you have people with high viral loads who are presymptomatic. Their innate immune system hasn’t even recognized that these people are infected.”
The adaptive immune system kicks in later. As Dr. Crotty noted, adaptive immunity is composed of three branches: B cells (the source of antibodies), CD4 “helper” T cells, and CD8 “killer” T cells. In the first year of COVID-19, his team tracked 188 subjects post infection in what he said was the largest study of its kind ever for any viral infection.
“In 8 months, 95% of people who had been infected still had measurable immune memory. In fact, most of them had multiple different compartments of immune memory still detectable, and it was likely that these individuals would still have that memory years into the future. Based on that, we made the prediction that most people who have had COVID-19 would likely be protected from reinfection – at least by severe infections – for 3 years into the future. That prediction has widely held up even in the presence of variants which weren’t around at the time.”
How do vaccines fit into the immunity picture? Dr. Crotty’s lab has tracked subjects who received 4 vaccines – Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax. Researchers found that the mRNA vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, “are fantastic at eliciting neutralizing antibodies quickly, but then they drop off rapidly at two doses and actually continue to drop for 10 months.”
Still, he said, “when we take a look at 6 months, actually the vaccines are doing pretty incredibly well. If we compare them to an average infected individual, the mRNA vaccines all have higher neutralizing antibody titers.”
What’s happening? According to Dr. Crotty, B cells are “making guesses about what other variants might look like.” But he said research suggests that an important component of this process – germinal centers – aren’t made in some vaccinated people who are immunocompromised. (Germinal centers have been described as “microbial boot camps” for B cells.)
The good news, Dr. Crotty noted, is that a greater understanding of how COVID-19 penetrates various layers of adaptive immune defenses will lead to better ways to protect the immunocompromised. “If you think about immunity in this layered defense way, there are various ways that it could be enhanced for individuals in different categories,” he said.
Hematologist Beverley J. Hunt, MD, OBE, of St. Thomas’ Hospital/King’s Healthcare Partners in London, spoke at the ASH presidential symposium about blood clots and COVID-19. As she noted, concern arose about vaccine-related blood clots. A British team “managed quickly to come up with a diagnostic criteria,” she said. “We looked at nearly 300 patients and essentially came up with a scoring system.”
The diagnostic criteria was based on an analysis of definite or probable cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) – all related to the AstraZeneca vaccine. The criteria appeared in a 2021 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The report’s data didn’t allow it to compare the efficacy of anticoagulants. However, Dr. Hunt noted that clinicians turned to plasma exchange in patients with low platelet counts and extensive thrombosis. The report stated “survival after plasma exchange was 90%, considerably better than would be predicted given the baseline characteristics.”
“Now we’re following up,” Dr. Hunt said. One question to answer: Is long-term anticoagulation helpful? “We have many patients,” she said, “who are taking an anti-platelet factor out of habit.”
Dr. Crotty and Dr. Hunt report no disclosures. This reporter is a paid participant in a COVID vaccine study run by Dr. Crotty’s lab.
AT ASH 2022
Problematic alcohol use on the rise among physicians?
However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.
However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.
“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Serious concern
The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.
Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.
To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.
In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.
“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.
Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.
The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
True prevalence unknown
“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.
The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.
True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.
They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.
The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.
The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.
However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.
“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Serious concern
The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.
Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.
To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.
In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.
“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.
Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.
The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
True prevalence unknown
“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.
The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.
True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.
They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.
The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.
The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.
However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.
“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Serious concern
The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.
Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.
To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.
In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.
“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.
Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.
The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
True prevalence unknown
“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.
The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.
True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.
They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.
The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.
The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
A doctor saves a drowning family in a dangerous river
Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.
She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.
My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.
I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”
I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.
What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.
But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.
When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.
So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.
The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.
When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.
All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.
I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.
Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.
The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.
I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.
I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”
Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.
I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.
Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.
I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.
I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.
I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.
Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.
She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.
My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.
I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”
I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.
What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.
But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.
When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.
So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.
The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.
When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.
All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.
I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.
Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.
The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.
I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.
I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”
Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.
I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.
Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.
I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.
I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.
I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.
Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.
She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.
My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.
I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”
I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.
What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.
But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.
When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.
So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.
The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.
When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.
All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.
I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.
Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.
The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.
I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.
I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”
Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.
I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.
Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.
I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.
I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.
I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.
Endocarditis tied to drug use on the rise, spiked during COVID
A new study provides more evidence that endocarditis associated with drug use is a significant and growing health concern, and further demonstrates that this risk has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The rate of infective endocarditis among individuals in the United States with opioid or cocaine use disorder increased in the 11-year period 2011 to 2022, with the steepest increase logged during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021-2022), according to the study.
A diagnosis of COVID-19 more than doubled the risk for a new diagnosis of endocarditis in patients with either cocaine (hazard ratio, 2.24) or opioid use disorder (HR, 2.23).
“Our data suggests that, in addition to the major social disruption from the pandemic, including disrupted access to health care, COVID-19 infection itself is a significant risk factor for new diagnosis of endocarditis in drug using populations,” authors Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues wrote.
“Drug-using populations, particularly those who use cocaine or opioids, have some of the highest risk for endocarditis, and here we show that having a COVID-19 diagnoses further increases this risk,” they added.
The study was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
The researchers analyzed electronic health record data collected from January 2011 to August 2022 for more than 109 million people across the United States, including more than 736,000 with an opioid use disorder and more than 379,000 with a cocaine use disorder.
In 2011, there were 4 cases of endocarditis per day for every 1 million people with opioid use disorder. By 2022, the rate had increased to 30 cases per day per 1 million people with opioid use disorder.
For people with cocaine use disorder, cases of endocarditis increased from 5 per 1 million in 2011 to 23 per 1 million in 2022.
Among individuals with cocaine or opioid use disorder, the risk of being hospitalized within 180 days following a diagnosis of endocarditis was higher in those with than without COVID-19 (67.5% vs. 58.7%; HR, 1.21).
The risk of dying within 180 days following new diagnosis of endocarditis was also higher in those with than without COVID-19 (9.2% vs. 8%; HR, 1.16).
The study also showed that Black and Hispanic individuals had a lower risk for COVID-19-associated endocarditis than non-Hispanic White individuals, which is consistent with a higher prevalence of injection drug use in non-Hispanic White populations, compared with Black or Hispanic populations, the researchers pointed out.
Dr. Volkow and colleagues said their findings highlight the need to screen drug users for endocarditis and link them to infectious disease and addiction treatment if they contract COVID-19.
“People with substance use disorder already face major impediments to proper health care due to lack of access and stigma,” Dr. Volkow said in a news release.
“Proven techniques like syringe service programs, which help people avoid infection from reused or shared injection equipment, can help prevent this often fatal and costly condition,” Dr. Volkow added.
The authors said it will also be important to determine exactly how SARS-CoV-2 viral infection exacerbates the risk for endocarditis in drug users.
Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study provides more evidence that endocarditis associated with drug use is a significant and growing health concern, and further demonstrates that this risk has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The rate of infective endocarditis among individuals in the United States with opioid or cocaine use disorder increased in the 11-year period 2011 to 2022, with the steepest increase logged during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021-2022), according to the study.
A diagnosis of COVID-19 more than doubled the risk for a new diagnosis of endocarditis in patients with either cocaine (hazard ratio, 2.24) or opioid use disorder (HR, 2.23).
“Our data suggests that, in addition to the major social disruption from the pandemic, including disrupted access to health care, COVID-19 infection itself is a significant risk factor for new diagnosis of endocarditis in drug using populations,” authors Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues wrote.
“Drug-using populations, particularly those who use cocaine or opioids, have some of the highest risk for endocarditis, and here we show that having a COVID-19 diagnoses further increases this risk,” they added.
The study was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
The researchers analyzed electronic health record data collected from January 2011 to August 2022 for more than 109 million people across the United States, including more than 736,000 with an opioid use disorder and more than 379,000 with a cocaine use disorder.
In 2011, there were 4 cases of endocarditis per day for every 1 million people with opioid use disorder. By 2022, the rate had increased to 30 cases per day per 1 million people with opioid use disorder.
For people with cocaine use disorder, cases of endocarditis increased from 5 per 1 million in 2011 to 23 per 1 million in 2022.
Among individuals with cocaine or opioid use disorder, the risk of being hospitalized within 180 days following a diagnosis of endocarditis was higher in those with than without COVID-19 (67.5% vs. 58.7%; HR, 1.21).
The risk of dying within 180 days following new diagnosis of endocarditis was also higher in those with than without COVID-19 (9.2% vs. 8%; HR, 1.16).
The study also showed that Black and Hispanic individuals had a lower risk for COVID-19-associated endocarditis than non-Hispanic White individuals, which is consistent with a higher prevalence of injection drug use in non-Hispanic White populations, compared with Black or Hispanic populations, the researchers pointed out.
Dr. Volkow and colleagues said their findings highlight the need to screen drug users for endocarditis and link them to infectious disease and addiction treatment if they contract COVID-19.
“People with substance use disorder already face major impediments to proper health care due to lack of access and stigma,” Dr. Volkow said in a news release.
“Proven techniques like syringe service programs, which help people avoid infection from reused or shared injection equipment, can help prevent this often fatal and costly condition,” Dr. Volkow added.
The authors said it will also be important to determine exactly how SARS-CoV-2 viral infection exacerbates the risk for endocarditis in drug users.
Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study provides more evidence that endocarditis associated with drug use is a significant and growing health concern, and further demonstrates that this risk has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The rate of infective endocarditis among individuals in the United States with opioid or cocaine use disorder increased in the 11-year period 2011 to 2022, with the steepest increase logged during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021-2022), according to the study.
A diagnosis of COVID-19 more than doubled the risk for a new diagnosis of endocarditis in patients with either cocaine (hazard ratio, 2.24) or opioid use disorder (HR, 2.23).
“Our data suggests that, in addition to the major social disruption from the pandemic, including disrupted access to health care, COVID-19 infection itself is a significant risk factor for new diagnosis of endocarditis in drug using populations,” authors Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues wrote.
“Drug-using populations, particularly those who use cocaine or opioids, have some of the highest risk for endocarditis, and here we show that having a COVID-19 diagnoses further increases this risk,” they added.
The study was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
The researchers analyzed electronic health record data collected from January 2011 to August 2022 for more than 109 million people across the United States, including more than 736,000 with an opioid use disorder and more than 379,000 with a cocaine use disorder.
In 2011, there were 4 cases of endocarditis per day for every 1 million people with opioid use disorder. By 2022, the rate had increased to 30 cases per day per 1 million people with opioid use disorder.
For people with cocaine use disorder, cases of endocarditis increased from 5 per 1 million in 2011 to 23 per 1 million in 2022.
Among individuals with cocaine or opioid use disorder, the risk of being hospitalized within 180 days following a diagnosis of endocarditis was higher in those with than without COVID-19 (67.5% vs. 58.7%; HR, 1.21).
The risk of dying within 180 days following new diagnosis of endocarditis was also higher in those with than without COVID-19 (9.2% vs. 8%; HR, 1.16).
The study also showed that Black and Hispanic individuals had a lower risk for COVID-19-associated endocarditis than non-Hispanic White individuals, which is consistent with a higher prevalence of injection drug use in non-Hispanic White populations, compared with Black or Hispanic populations, the researchers pointed out.
Dr. Volkow and colleagues said their findings highlight the need to screen drug users for endocarditis and link them to infectious disease and addiction treatment if they contract COVID-19.
“People with substance use disorder already face major impediments to proper health care due to lack of access and stigma,” Dr. Volkow said in a news release.
“Proven techniques like syringe service programs, which help people avoid infection from reused or shared injection equipment, can help prevent this often fatal and costly condition,” Dr. Volkow added.
The authors said it will also be important to determine exactly how SARS-CoV-2 viral infection exacerbates the risk for endocarditis in drug users.
Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
New PDT therapy for CTCL to be reviewed by FDA
based on phase 3 findings published in JAMA Dermatology.
The treatment employs an ointment formulation of synthetic hypericin (HyBryte), a photosensitizer, that is preferentially absorbed into malignant cells and activated with visible light – rather than ultraviolet light – approximately 24 hours later. Investigators saw significant clinical responses in both patch and plaque type lesions and across races during the 24-week placebo-controlled, double-blinded, phase 3, randomized clinical trial.
“Traditional phototherapy, ultraviolet B phototherapy, has a limited depth of penetration, so patients with thicker plaque lesions don’t respond as well ... and UVB phototherapy typically is less effective in penetrating pigmented skin,” Ellen J. Kim, MD, lead author of the FLASH phase 3 trial, said in an interview.
Visible light in the yellow-red spectrum (500-650 nm) “penetrates deeper into the skin” and is nonmutagenic in vitro, so “theoretically it should have a much more favorable long-term safety profile,” said Dr. Kim, a dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Currently, she said, the risk of secondary malignancies inherent with UV PDT, including melanoma, is a deterrent for some patients, especially “patients with really fair skin and a history of skin cancer.”
Hypericin PDT also seems well suited for use with an at-home light unit. “In our field, it’s not about which therapy is [universally] better or best, but a matter of what works best for each patient at that moment in time, depending on the side-effect profile and other issues such as access,” Dr. Kim said. “It will be great to have another option for an incurable disease that requires chronic management.”
Mycosis fungoides (MF)/CTCL is considered an orphan disease, and the treatment has received orphan drug and fast track designations from the FDA, and orphan designation from the European Medicines Agency, according to a press release from its developer, Soligenix. The company is anticipating potential approval in the second half of 2023 and is targeting early 2024 for a U.S. launch, the statement said.
Phase 3 results
The pivotal trial involved 169 patients at 39 academic and community-based U.S. medical centers and consisted of several 6-week cycles of twice-weekly treatment punctuated by 2-week breaks. In cycle 1, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive hypericin or placebo treatment of three index lesions. Cycle 2 involved the crossover of placebo patients to active treatment of index lesions, and cycle 3 (optional) involved open-label treatment of all desired lesions (index and nonindex).
The trial defined the primary endpoint in phase 1 as 50% or greater improvement in the modified Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity score – a tool that’s endorsed by U.S. and international MF/CTCL specialty group consensus guidelines. For cycles 2 and 3, open-label response rates were secondary endpoints. Responses were assessed after 2-week rest periods to allow for treatment-induced skin reactions to subside.
After one cycle of treatment, topical hypericin PDT was more effective than placebo (an index lesion response rate of 16% vs. 4%; P =.04). The index lesion response rate with treatment increased to 40% after two cycles and 49% after three cycles. All were statistically significant changes.
Response rates were similar in patch and plaque-type lesions and regardless of age, sex, race, stage IA versus IB, time since diagnosis, and number of prior therapies. Adverse events were primarily mild application-site skin reactions. No serious drug-related adverse events occurred, Dr. Kim said, and “we had a low drop-out rate overall.”
Into the real world
The 24-week phase 3 trial duration is short, considering that “typically, phototherapy takes between 4 to 24 months [to achieve] full responses in CTCL,” Dr. Kim said in the interview.
So with real-world application, she said, “we’ll want to see where the overall response peaks with longer treatment, what the effects are of continuous treatment without any built-in breaks, and whether we will indeed see less skin cancer development in patients who are at higher risk of developing skin cancers from light treatment.”
Such questions will be explored as part of a new 4-year, 50-patient, open-label, multicenter study with the primary aim of investigating home-based hypericin PDT therapy in a supervised setting, said Dr. Kim, principal investigator of this study. Patients who are doing well after 6 weeks of twice-weekly therapy will be given at-home light units to continue therapy and achieve 1 year of treatment with no breaks. They will be monitored with video-based telemedicine.
“Long term, having a home unit should really improve patient access and compliance and hopefully effectiveness,” Dr. Kim said. Based on the phase 3 experience, “we think that continuous treatment will be well tolerated and that we may see greater responses.”
On Dec. 19, Soligenix announced that enrollment had begun in a phase 2a study of synthetic hypericin for treating patients with mild to moderate psoriasis.
Dr. Kim reported to JAMA Dermatology grants from Innate Pharma and Galderma; consulting/advisory fees from Almirall, Galderma, and Helsinn; and honoraria from Ology and UptoDate.
based on phase 3 findings published in JAMA Dermatology.
The treatment employs an ointment formulation of synthetic hypericin (HyBryte), a photosensitizer, that is preferentially absorbed into malignant cells and activated with visible light – rather than ultraviolet light – approximately 24 hours later. Investigators saw significant clinical responses in both patch and plaque type lesions and across races during the 24-week placebo-controlled, double-blinded, phase 3, randomized clinical trial.
“Traditional phototherapy, ultraviolet B phototherapy, has a limited depth of penetration, so patients with thicker plaque lesions don’t respond as well ... and UVB phototherapy typically is less effective in penetrating pigmented skin,” Ellen J. Kim, MD, lead author of the FLASH phase 3 trial, said in an interview.
Visible light in the yellow-red spectrum (500-650 nm) “penetrates deeper into the skin” and is nonmutagenic in vitro, so “theoretically it should have a much more favorable long-term safety profile,” said Dr. Kim, a dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Currently, she said, the risk of secondary malignancies inherent with UV PDT, including melanoma, is a deterrent for some patients, especially “patients with really fair skin and a history of skin cancer.”
Hypericin PDT also seems well suited for use with an at-home light unit. “In our field, it’s not about which therapy is [universally] better or best, but a matter of what works best for each patient at that moment in time, depending on the side-effect profile and other issues such as access,” Dr. Kim said. “It will be great to have another option for an incurable disease that requires chronic management.”
Mycosis fungoides (MF)/CTCL is considered an orphan disease, and the treatment has received orphan drug and fast track designations from the FDA, and orphan designation from the European Medicines Agency, according to a press release from its developer, Soligenix. The company is anticipating potential approval in the second half of 2023 and is targeting early 2024 for a U.S. launch, the statement said.
Phase 3 results
The pivotal trial involved 169 patients at 39 academic and community-based U.S. medical centers and consisted of several 6-week cycles of twice-weekly treatment punctuated by 2-week breaks. In cycle 1, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive hypericin or placebo treatment of three index lesions. Cycle 2 involved the crossover of placebo patients to active treatment of index lesions, and cycle 3 (optional) involved open-label treatment of all desired lesions (index and nonindex).
The trial defined the primary endpoint in phase 1 as 50% or greater improvement in the modified Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity score – a tool that’s endorsed by U.S. and international MF/CTCL specialty group consensus guidelines. For cycles 2 and 3, open-label response rates were secondary endpoints. Responses were assessed after 2-week rest periods to allow for treatment-induced skin reactions to subside.
After one cycle of treatment, topical hypericin PDT was more effective than placebo (an index lesion response rate of 16% vs. 4%; P =.04). The index lesion response rate with treatment increased to 40% after two cycles and 49% after three cycles. All were statistically significant changes.
Response rates were similar in patch and plaque-type lesions and regardless of age, sex, race, stage IA versus IB, time since diagnosis, and number of prior therapies. Adverse events were primarily mild application-site skin reactions. No serious drug-related adverse events occurred, Dr. Kim said, and “we had a low drop-out rate overall.”
Into the real world
The 24-week phase 3 trial duration is short, considering that “typically, phototherapy takes between 4 to 24 months [to achieve] full responses in CTCL,” Dr. Kim said in the interview.
So with real-world application, she said, “we’ll want to see where the overall response peaks with longer treatment, what the effects are of continuous treatment without any built-in breaks, and whether we will indeed see less skin cancer development in patients who are at higher risk of developing skin cancers from light treatment.”
Such questions will be explored as part of a new 4-year, 50-patient, open-label, multicenter study with the primary aim of investigating home-based hypericin PDT therapy in a supervised setting, said Dr. Kim, principal investigator of this study. Patients who are doing well after 6 weeks of twice-weekly therapy will be given at-home light units to continue therapy and achieve 1 year of treatment with no breaks. They will be monitored with video-based telemedicine.
“Long term, having a home unit should really improve patient access and compliance and hopefully effectiveness,” Dr. Kim said. Based on the phase 3 experience, “we think that continuous treatment will be well tolerated and that we may see greater responses.”
On Dec. 19, Soligenix announced that enrollment had begun in a phase 2a study of synthetic hypericin for treating patients with mild to moderate psoriasis.
Dr. Kim reported to JAMA Dermatology grants from Innate Pharma and Galderma; consulting/advisory fees from Almirall, Galderma, and Helsinn; and honoraria from Ology and UptoDate.
based on phase 3 findings published in JAMA Dermatology.
The treatment employs an ointment formulation of synthetic hypericin (HyBryte), a photosensitizer, that is preferentially absorbed into malignant cells and activated with visible light – rather than ultraviolet light – approximately 24 hours later. Investigators saw significant clinical responses in both patch and plaque type lesions and across races during the 24-week placebo-controlled, double-blinded, phase 3, randomized clinical trial.
“Traditional phototherapy, ultraviolet B phototherapy, has a limited depth of penetration, so patients with thicker plaque lesions don’t respond as well ... and UVB phototherapy typically is less effective in penetrating pigmented skin,” Ellen J. Kim, MD, lead author of the FLASH phase 3 trial, said in an interview.
Visible light in the yellow-red spectrum (500-650 nm) “penetrates deeper into the skin” and is nonmutagenic in vitro, so “theoretically it should have a much more favorable long-term safety profile,” said Dr. Kim, a dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Currently, she said, the risk of secondary malignancies inherent with UV PDT, including melanoma, is a deterrent for some patients, especially “patients with really fair skin and a history of skin cancer.”
Hypericin PDT also seems well suited for use with an at-home light unit. “In our field, it’s not about which therapy is [universally] better or best, but a matter of what works best for each patient at that moment in time, depending on the side-effect profile and other issues such as access,” Dr. Kim said. “It will be great to have another option for an incurable disease that requires chronic management.”
Mycosis fungoides (MF)/CTCL is considered an orphan disease, and the treatment has received orphan drug and fast track designations from the FDA, and orphan designation from the European Medicines Agency, according to a press release from its developer, Soligenix. The company is anticipating potential approval in the second half of 2023 and is targeting early 2024 for a U.S. launch, the statement said.
Phase 3 results
The pivotal trial involved 169 patients at 39 academic and community-based U.S. medical centers and consisted of several 6-week cycles of twice-weekly treatment punctuated by 2-week breaks. In cycle 1, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive hypericin or placebo treatment of three index lesions. Cycle 2 involved the crossover of placebo patients to active treatment of index lesions, and cycle 3 (optional) involved open-label treatment of all desired lesions (index and nonindex).
The trial defined the primary endpoint in phase 1 as 50% or greater improvement in the modified Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity score – a tool that’s endorsed by U.S. and international MF/CTCL specialty group consensus guidelines. For cycles 2 and 3, open-label response rates were secondary endpoints. Responses were assessed after 2-week rest periods to allow for treatment-induced skin reactions to subside.
After one cycle of treatment, topical hypericin PDT was more effective than placebo (an index lesion response rate of 16% vs. 4%; P =.04). The index lesion response rate with treatment increased to 40% after two cycles and 49% after three cycles. All were statistically significant changes.
Response rates were similar in patch and plaque-type lesions and regardless of age, sex, race, stage IA versus IB, time since diagnosis, and number of prior therapies. Adverse events were primarily mild application-site skin reactions. No serious drug-related adverse events occurred, Dr. Kim said, and “we had a low drop-out rate overall.”
Into the real world
The 24-week phase 3 trial duration is short, considering that “typically, phototherapy takes between 4 to 24 months [to achieve] full responses in CTCL,” Dr. Kim said in the interview.
So with real-world application, she said, “we’ll want to see where the overall response peaks with longer treatment, what the effects are of continuous treatment without any built-in breaks, and whether we will indeed see less skin cancer development in patients who are at higher risk of developing skin cancers from light treatment.”
Such questions will be explored as part of a new 4-year, 50-patient, open-label, multicenter study with the primary aim of investigating home-based hypericin PDT therapy in a supervised setting, said Dr. Kim, principal investigator of this study. Patients who are doing well after 6 weeks of twice-weekly therapy will be given at-home light units to continue therapy and achieve 1 year of treatment with no breaks. They will be monitored with video-based telemedicine.
“Long term, having a home unit should really improve patient access and compliance and hopefully effectiveness,” Dr. Kim said. Based on the phase 3 experience, “we think that continuous treatment will be well tolerated and that we may see greater responses.”
On Dec. 19, Soligenix announced that enrollment had begun in a phase 2a study of synthetic hypericin for treating patients with mild to moderate psoriasis.
Dr. Kim reported to JAMA Dermatology grants from Innate Pharma and Galderma; consulting/advisory fees from Almirall, Galderma, and Helsinn; and honoraria from Ology and UptoDate.