Randy Dotinga

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

SAN DIEGO — While medicine has made tremendous strides against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children in recent years, a new study finds that mortality outcomes in older adults in the United States haven’t improved since the turn of the 21st century.

From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.

By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.

“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”

According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.

One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”

For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.

The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.

There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”

Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”

Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.

Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — While medicine has made tremendous strides against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children in recent years, a new study finds that mortality outcomes in older adults in the United States haven’t improved since the turn of the 21st century.

From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.

By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.

“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”

According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.

One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”

For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.

The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.

There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”

Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”

Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.

Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — While medicine has made tremendous strides against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children in recent years, a new study finds that mortality outcomes in older adults in the United States haven’t improved since the turn of the 21st century.

From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.

By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.

“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”

According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.

One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”

For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.

The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.

There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”

Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”

Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.

Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.

Scientists are beginning to unravel the secrets of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the devastating disorder that floods the lungs with fluid and has ushered countless millions to death after infection with pneumonia, sepsis, and COVID-19.

Two centuries after the lung damage caused by the disorder was first described in medicine, it’s now clear that ARDS is an autoimmune condition spurred by the body’s overactive defenses. There’s interest in disrupting “crosstalk” between cells, and rise of a new form of genetic analysis is allowing researchers to test their hypotheses more effectively than ever before. And, perhaps most importantly, recent findings reveal how stem cells in the epithelial lining of the lungs get stalled in an intermediate stage before regenerating into new cells. Reversing this process could trigger repair and recovery.

There’s still a ways to go before clinical trials can test therapies to turn things around at the epithelial level, acknowledged University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, professor of internal medicine Rachel L. Zemans, MD, in an interview. Still, “it’s a pretty exciting time,” said Dr Zemans, who manages a lab that explores how the lung epithelium responds to injury.
 

A lung disorder’s deep roots in human history

A British doctor first described the traits of ARDS in 1821, although this form of pulmonary edema had been described in “ancient writings,” according to a 2005 report by Gordon Bernard, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Sometimes called “double pneumonia,” ARDS was almost always fatal until the last few decades of the 20th century. “The advent of well-equipped ICUs, well-trained staff, and the availability of reliable positive pressure ventilators has allowed patients to be kept alive much longer and thus have the opportunity to heal the pulmonary injury and survive,” Dr Bernard wrote.

According to the Mayo Clinic, there are many causes of ARDS. Sepsis is the most common, and others include severe pneumonia, head/chest injuries, massive blood transfusions, pancreatitis, burns, and inhalation of harmful substances. Since 2020, ARDS has been a hallmark of COVID-19.

In an interview, University of Washington, Seattle, emeritus professor of medicine Thomas R. Martin MD, explained that ARDS occurs when the epithelium barrier in the lungs breaks down. Unlike the permeable endothelial barrier, the alveolar epithelium is “like a brick wall or a big dam, keeping red cells and plasma out of the airspace.”

In cases of pulmonary edema due to heart failure, fluid can back up into the lungs, said Dr Martin, who studies ARDS. However, pumps in the epithelium can clear that excess fluid pretty quickly because the epithelium remains in a normal state, he said. “Given enough time and enough medical support, people with heart failure and pulmonary edema can get better without lung injury.”

In ARDS, however, “the epithelium is damaged. Cells die in the alveolar wall, the scaffolding is exposed, and the fluid in the alveoli cannot be cleared out. You’ve got a disaster on your hands because all of the fluid and red blood cells and inflammatory products in the blood are going right into the airspace. The patient gets extremely short of breath because their oxygen level falls.”
 

COVID-19 virus finds a weak spot in the lungs

COVID-19 is “a classic example of an attack on the alveolar epithelium,” Dr Martin said.

By chance, the virus evolved to recognize receptors in the epithelium, allowing it to enter and propagate. “To make matters worse, defense mechanisms in the body attack those dying epithelial cells because the virus is visible on the surface cells. So lymphocytes from the immune system and macrophages attack the outer walls and cause further damage.”

Other scientists agree about this general picture of ARDS. “Studies of human lung tissue support the notion that failure of alveolar repair and regeneration mechanisms underlie the chronic lung dysfunction that can result from ARD,” wrote researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, in a 2022 report.

According to Dr Martin, researchers and clinicians have discovered a pair of strategies to help vanquish COVID-19: Control viral entry through antiviral medication and dampen the body’s inflammatory response via steroids.

Still, “although we’ve learned lessons from COVID-19, we’re not good at all at promoting repair,” Dr Martin said. While new drugs have dramatically improved treatment for lung diseases such as cystic fibrosis, he said, “we don’t have good examples of new therapies that promote repair in ARDS.”
 

Looking for a way to turn the tide of fluid buildup

Dr Zemans and colleagues have uncovered a crucial obstacle to repair: the failure of stem cells to fully differentiate and become functional alveolar epithelial cells.

Researchers only began to understand a few years ago that the stem cells go through a transitional stage from type 2 to type 1, which make up 98% of cells in the epithelial surface, Dr Zemans said. In patients with ARDS who don’t get better quickly, “it looks like the cells get hung up in this intermediate state. They can’t finish that regeneration.”

As a 2022 study by Dr Zemans and colleagues put it, this process can lead to “ongoing barrier permeability, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, and ventilator dependence, and mortality.” In fact, she said, “when we look at the lungs of people who died of ARDS, their cells were all in that intermediate stage.”

The discovery of the intermediate state only came about because of new technology called single-cell RNA sequencing, she said. “Now, these transitional cells are being found in other organs.”

Why do the epithelial cells get only part way through the regeneration process? It’s not entirely clear, Dr Zemans said, but researcher are intrigued by the idea that “cross-talk” between cells is playing a role.

“When the cells are in that stage, they also activate neighboring cells, including inflammatory cells, like macrophages, and fibroblasts,” she said. “And once those cells become activated, they become pathologic. What we think is that those cells then can talk back to the epithelial cells and prevent the epithelial cells from finishing that differentiation. It’s really hard to snap out of that positive feedback loop.”

This interaction probably evolved “for a good reason,” she said, “but it also became pathologic.” If the cells stay in the intermediate stage too long, she said, fibrosis develops. “They have scar tissue that never goes away. It takes a lot of work to expand the lungs when they’re so stiff when they should be stretchy like a rubber band. Scar tissue also gets in the way of the oxygen absorption, so some people have low oxygen levels.”
 

Future directions: Teaching cells to get “unstuck”

What’s next for research? One direction is exploring the variety of types of cells in the epithelium. Recent finding are revealing “new cell subpopulations that maintain alveolar homeostasis, communicate injury signals, and participate in normal and maladaptive repair. Emerging data illuminate the complexity of alveolar physiology and pathology to provide a more complete picture of how alveoli maintain health and respond to injurious stimuli,” write the researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in their 2022 report.

Meanwhile, “we’re trying to look at the signaling pathways, the proteins or molecules, to understand the signals that tell a cell how to get unstuck,” Dr Zemans said. And researchers are exploring whether knocking out certain genes expressed by transitional cells in mice will lead to better outcomes, she said.

The 2022 study by Dr Zeman and colleagues described the potential ramifications of better understanding of the entire process: “Ultimately, investigation of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying ineffectual alveolar regeneration in ARDS and fibrosis may lead to novel therapies to promote physiological regeneration, thus accelerating restoration of barrier integrity, resolution of edema, liberation from the ventilator and survival in ARDS, and preventing fibrosis in fibroproliferative ARDS and [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis].”

To put it more simply, “if you can seal the barrier, you can get the fluid out of the lungs, and you can get the patients off the ventilator, get out of the ICU, and go home,” Dr Zemans said.

Dr Zemans and Dr Martin have no disclosures.

Scientists are beginning to unravel the secrets of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the devastating disorder that floods the lungs with fluid and has ushered countless millions to death after infection with pneumonia, sepsis, and COVID-19.

Two centuries after the lung damage caused by the disorder was first described in medicine, it’s now clear that ARDS is an autoimmune condition spurred by the body’s overactive defenses. There’s interest in disrupting “crosstalk” between cells, and rise of a new form of genetic analysis is allowing researchers to test their hypotheses more effectively than ever before. And, perhaps most importantly, recent findings reveal how stem cells in the epithelial lining of the lungs get stalled in an intermediate stage before regenerating into new cells. Reversing this process could trigger repair and recovery.

There’s still a ways to go before clinical trials can test therapies to turn things around at the epithelial level, acknowledged University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, professor of internal medicine Rachel L. Zemans, MD, in an interview. Still, “it’s a pretty exciting time,” said Dr Zemans, who manages a lab that explores how the lung epithelium responds to injury.
 

A lung disorder’s deep roots in human history

A British doctor first described the traits of ARDS in 1821, although this form of pulmonary edema had been described in “ancient writings,” according to a 2005 report by Gordon Bernard, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Sometimes called “double pneumonia,” ARDS was almost always fatal until the last few decades of the 20th century. “The advent of well-equipped ICUs, well-trained staff, and the availability of reliable positive pressure ventilators has allowed patients to be kept alive much longer and thus have the opportunity to heal the pulmonary injury and survive,” Dr Bernard wrote.

According to the Mayo Clinic, there are many causes of ARDS. Sepsis is the most common, and others include severe pneumonia, head/chest injuries, massive blood transfusions, pancreatitis, burns, and inhalation of harmful substances. Since 2020, ARDS has been a hallmark of COVID-19.

In an interview, University of Washington, Seattle, emeritus professor of medicine Thomas R. Martin MD, explained that ARDS occurs when the epithelium barrier in the lungs breaks down. Unlike the permeable endothelial barrier, the alveolar epithelium is “like a brick wall or a big dam, keeping red cells and plasma out of the airspace.”

In cases of pulmonary edema due to heart failure, fluid can back up into the lungs, said Dr Martin, who studies ARDS. However, pumps in the epithelium can clear that excess fluid pretty quickly because the epithelium remains in a normal state, he said. “Given enough time and enough medical support, people with heart failure and pulmonary edema can get better without lung injury.”

In ARDS, however, “the epithelium is damaged. Cells die in the alveolar wall, the scaffolding is exposed, and the fluid in the alveoli cannot be cleared out. You’ve got a disaster on your hands because all of the fluid and red blood cells and inflammatory products in the blood are going right into the airspace. The patient gets extremely short of breath because their oxygen level falls.”
 

COVID-19 virus finds a weak spot in the lungs

COVID-19 is “a classic example of an attack on the alveolar epithelium,” Dr Martin said.

By chance, the virus evolved to recognize receptors in the epithelium, allowing it to enter and propagate. “To make matters worse, defense mechanisms in the body attack those dying epithelial cells because the virus is visible on the surface cells. So lymphocytes from the immune system and macrophages attack the outer walls and cause further damage.”

Other scientists agree about this general picture of ARDS. “Studies of human lung tissue support the notion that failure of alveolar repair and regeneration mechanisms underlie the chronic lung dysfunction that can result from ARD,” wrote researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, in a 2022 report.

According to Dr Martin, researchers and clinicians have discovered a pair of strategies to help vanquish COVID-19: Control viral entry through antiviral medication and dampen the body’s inflammatory response via steroids.

Still, “although we’ve learned lessons from COVID-19, we’re not good at all at promoting repair,” Dr Martin said. While new drugs have dramatically improved treatment for lung diseases such as cystic fibrosis, he said, “we don’t have good examples of new therapies that promote repair in ARDS.”
 

Looking for a way to turn the tide of fluid buildup

Dr Zemans and colleagues have uncovered a crucial obstacle to repair: the failure of stem cells to fully differentiate and become functional alveolar epithelial cells.

Researchers only began to understand a few years ago that the stem cells go through a transitional stage from type 2 to type 1, which make up 98% of cells in the epithelial surface, Dr Zemans said. In patients with ARDS who don’t get better quickly, “it looks like the cells get hung up in this intermediate state. They can’t finish that regeneration.”

As a 2022 study by Dr Zemans and colleagues put it, this process can lead to “ongoing barrier permeability, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, and ventilator dependence, and mortality.” In fact, she said, “when we look at the lungs of people who died of ARDS, their cells were all in that intermediate stage.”

The discovery of the intermediate state only came about because of new technology called single-cell RNA sequencing, she said. “Now, these transitional cells are being found in other organs.”

Why do the epithelial cells get only part way through the regeneration process? It’s not entirely clear, Dr Zemans said, but researcher are intrigued by the idea that “cross-talk” between cells is playing a role.

“When the cells are in that stage, they also activate neighboring cells, including inflammatory cells, like macrophages, and fibroblasts,” she said. “And once those cells become activated, they become pathologic. What we think is that those cells then can talk back to the epithelial cells and prevent the epithelial cells from finishing that differentiation. It’s really hard to snap out of that positive feedback loop.”

This interaction probably evolved “for a good reason,” she said, “but it also became pathologic.” If the cells stay in the intermediate stage too long, she said, fibrosis develops. “They have scar tissue that never goes away. It takes a lot of work to expand the lungs when they’re so stiff when they should be stretchy like a rubber band. Scar tissue also gets in the way of the oxygen absorption, so some people have low oxygen levels.”
 

Future directions: Teaching cells to get “unstuck”

What’s next for research? One direction is exploring the variety of types of cells in the epithelium. Recent finding are revealing “new cell subpopulations that maintain alveolar homeostasis, communicate injury signals, and participate in normal and maladaptive repair. Emerging data illuminate the complexity of alveolar physiology and pathology to provide a more complete picture of how alveoli maintain health and respond to injurious stimuli,” write the researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in their 2022 report.

Meanwhile, “we’re trying to look at the signaling pathways, the proteins or molecules, to understand the signals that tell a cell how to get unstuck,” Dr Zemans said. And researchers are exploring whether knocking out certain genes expressed by transitional cells in mice will lead to better outcomes, she said.

The 2022 study by Dr Zeman and colleagues described the potential ramifications of better understanding of the entire process: “Ultimately, investigation of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying ineffectual alveolar regeneration in ARDS and fibrosis may lead to novel therapies to promote physiological regeneration, thus accelerating restoration of barrier integrity, resolution of edema, liberation from the ventilator and survival in ARDS, and preventing fibrosis in fibroproliferative ARDS and [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis].”

To put it more simply, “if you can seal the barrier, you can get the fluid out of the lungs, and you can get the patients off the ventilator, get out of the ICU, and go home,” Dr Zemans said.

Dr Zemans and Dr Martin have no disclosures.

Scientists are beginning to unravel the secrets of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the devastating disorder that floods the lungs with fluid and has ushered countless millions to death after infection with pneumonia, sepsis, and COVID-19.

Two centuries after the lung damage caused by the disorder was first described in medicine, it’s now clear that ARDS is an autoimmune condition spurred by the body’s overactive defenses. There’s interest in disrupting “crosstalk” between cells, and rise of a new form of genetic analysis is allowing researchers to test their hypotheses more effectively than ever before. And, perhaps most importantly, recent findings reveal how stem cells in the epithelial lining of the lungs get stalled in an intermediate stage before regenerating into new cells. Reversing this process could trigger repair and recovery.

There’s still a ways to go before clinical trials can test therapies to turn things around at the epithelial level, acknowledged University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, professor of internal medicine Rachel L. Zemans, MD, in an interview. Still, “it’s a pretty exciting time,” said Dr Zemans, who manages a lab that explores how the lung epithelium responds to injury.
 

A lung disorder’s deep roots in human history

A British doctor first described the traits of ARDS in 1821, although this form of pulmonary edema had been described in “ancient writings,” according to a 2005 report by Gordon Bernard, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Sometimes called “double pneumonia,” ARDS was almost always fatal until the last few decades of the 20th century. “The advent of well-equipped ICUs, well-trained staff, and the availability of reliable positive pressure ventilators has allowed patients to be kept alive much longer and thus have the opportunity to heal the pulmonary injury and survive,” Dr Bernard wrote.

According to the Mayo Clinic, there are many causes of ARDS. Sepsis is the most common, and others include severe pneumonia, head/chest injuries, massive blood transfusions, pancreatitis, burns, and inhalation of harmful substances. Since 2020, ARDS has been a hallmark of COVID-19.

In an interview, University of Washington, Seattle, emeritus professor of medicine Thomas R. Martin MD, explained that ARDS occurs when the epithelium barrier in the lungs breaks down. Unlike the permeable endothelial barrier, the alveolar epithelium is “like a brick wall or a big dam, keeping red cells and plasma out of the airspace.”

In cases of pulmonary edema due to heart failure, fluid can back up into the lungs, said Dr Martin, who studies ARDS. However, pumps in the epithelium can clear that excess fluid pretty quickly because the epithelium remains in a normal state, he said. “Given enough time and enough medical support, people with heart failure and pulmonary edema can get better without lung injury.”

In ARDS, however, “the epithelium is damaged. Cells die in the alveolar wall, the scaffolding is exposed, and the fluid in the alveoli cannot be cleared out. You’ve got a disaster on your hands because all of the fluid and red blood cells and inflammatory products in the blood are going right into the airspace. The patient gets extremely short of breath because their oxygen level falls.”
 

COVID-19 virus finds a weak spot in the lungs

COVID-19 is “a classic example of an attack on the alveolar epithelium,” Dr Martin said.

By chance, the virus evolved to recognize receptors in the epithelium, allowing it to enter and propagate. “To make matters worse, defense mechanisms in the body attack those dying epithelial cells because the virus is visible on the surface cells. So lymphocytes from the immune system and macrophages attack the outer walls and cause further damage.”

Other scientists agree about this general picture of ARDS. “Studies of human lung tissue support the notion that failure of alveolar repair and regeneration mechanisms underlie the chronic lung dysfunction that can result from ARD,” wrote researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, in a 2022 report.

According to Dr Martin, researchers and clinicians have discovered a pair of strategies to help vanquish COVID-19: Control viral entry through antiviral medication and dampen the body’s inflammatory response via steroids.

Still, “although we’ve learned lessons from COVID-19, we’re not good at all at promoting repair,” Dr Martin said. While new drugs have dramatically improved treatment for lung diseases such as cystic fibrosis, he said, “we don’t have good examples of new therapies that promote repair in ARDS.”
 

Looking for a way to turn the tide of fluid buildup

Dr Zemans and colleagues have uncovered a crucial obstacle to repair: the failure of stem cells to fully differentiate and become functional alveolar epithelial cells.

Researchers only began to understand a few years ago that the stem cells go through a transitional stage from type 2 to type 1, which make up 98% of cells in the epithelial surface, Dr Zemans said. In patients with ARDS who don’t get better quickly, “it looks like the cells get hung up in this intermediate state. They can’t finish that regeneration.”

As a 2022 study by Dr Zemans and colleagues put it, this process can lead to “ongoing barrier permeability, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, and ventilator dependence, and mortality.” In fact, she said, “when we look at the lungs of people who died of ARDS, their cells were all in that intermediate stage.”

The discovery of the intermediate state only came about because of new technology called single-cell RNA sequencing, she said. “Now, these transitional cells are being found in other organs.”

Why do the epithelial cells get only part way through the regeneration process? It’s not entirely clear, Dr Zemans said, but researcher are intrigued by the idea that “cross-talk” between cells is playing a role.

“When the cells are in that stage, they also activate neighboring cells, including inflammatory cells, like macrophages, and fibroblasts,” she said. “And once those cells become activated, they become pathologic. What we think is that those cells then can talk back to the epithelial cells and prevent the epithelial cells from finishing that differentiation. It’s really hard to snap out of that positive feedback loop.”

This interaction probably evolved “for a good reason,” she said, “but it also became pathologic.” If the cells stay in the intermediate stage too long, she said, fibrosis develops. “They have scar tissue that never goes away. It takes a lot of work to expand the lungs when they’re so stiff when they should be stretchy like a rubber band. Scar tissue also gets in the way of the oxygen absorption, so some people have low oxygen levels.”
 

Future directions: Teaching cells to get “unstuck”

What’s next for research? One direction is exploring the variety of types of cells in the epithelium. Recent finding are revealing “new cell subpopulations that maintain alveolar homeostasis, communicate injury signals, and participate in normal and maladaptive repair. Emerging data illuminate the complexity of alveolar physiology and pathology to provide a more complete picture of how alveoli maintain health and respond to injurious stimuli,” write the researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in their 2022 report.

Meanwhile, “we’re trying to look at the signaling pathways, the proteins or molecules, to understand the signals that tell a cell how to get unstuck,” Dr Zemans said. And researchers are exploring whether knocking out certain genes expressed by transitional cells in mice will lead to better outcomes, she said.

The 2022 study by Dr Zeman and colleagues described the potential ramifications of better understanding of the entire process: “Ultimately, investigation of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying ineffectual alveolar regeneration in ARDS and fibrosis may lead to novel therapies to promote physiological regeneration, thus accelerating restoration of barrier integrity, resolution of edema, liberation from the ventilator and survival in ARDS, and preventing fibrosis in fibroproliferative ARDS and [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis].”

To put it more simply, “if you can seal the barrier, you can get the fluid out of the lungs, and you can get the patients off the ventilator, get out of the ICU, and go home,” Dr Zemans said.

Dr Zemans and Dr Martin have no disclosures.

Harvard Medical School’s Sharon K. Inouye, MD, MPH, is editor in chief of JAMA Internal Medicine and a leading voice in American gerontology. We asked her to choose five of the influential journal’s most impactful studies from 2023 and highlight important take-home messages for internists and their colleagues.
 

Q: One of the studies you chose suggests that the antiviral nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) can ward off long COVID. Could you recap the findings?

A: Researchers followed a group of more than 280,000 Department of Veterans Affairs patients who were seen in 2022, had a positive COVID test, and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID. They focused on those who survived to 30 days after their COVID infection and compared those who received the drug within the first 5 days of a positive test with an equivalent control group.

They found that 13 long COVID symptoms were all significantly less common (relative risk = 0.74) in those who received nirmatrelvir. This was true no matter whether they’d ever had a COVID vaccination.
 

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

A: You can’t generalize from this to everyone because, of course, not everyone was included in this study. But it is highly suggestive that this drug is very effective for preventing long COVID.

Nirmatrelvir was touted as being able to shorten duration of illness and prevent hospitalization. But if you were low risk or you were already well into your COVID course, it wasn’t like rush, rush, rush to the doctor to get it.

This changes that equation because we know long COVID is such a huge issue. The vast majority of doctors who work with COVID patients and know this are now being more aggressive about prescribing it.
 

Q: What about patients whom the CDC considers to be at less risk — people with up-to-date vaccinations who are under 50 with mild-to-moderate COVID and no higher-risk medical conditions? Should they take nirmatrelvir?

A: The evidence is not 100% in yet. A study like this one needs to be repeated and include younger people without any risk factors to see if we see the same thing. So it’s a personal choice, and a personal calculus needs to be done. A lot of people are making that choice [to take the drug], and it can be a rational decision.

Q: You also chose a study that links high thyroid hormone levels to higher rates of dementia. What did it reveal?

A: This study looks at patients who had thyrotoxicosis — a thyroid level that’s too high — from hormone produced endogenously, and exogenously. Researchers tracked almost 66,000 patients aged 65 and older and found that thyrotoxicosis from all causes, whether it was endogenous or exogenous, was linked to an increased risk of dementia in a dose-response relationship (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.39).

Q: Is there a clinical take-home message here?

A: When we start patients on thyroid medication, they don’t always get reassessed on a regular basis. Given this finding, a TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone] level is indicated during the annual wellness check that patients on Medicare can get every year.

Q: Is TSH measured as part of routine blood tests?

A: No it’s not. It has to be ordered. I think that’s why we’re seeing this problem to begin with — because it’s not something we all have awareness about. I wasn’t aware myself that mildly high levels of thyroid could increase the risk of cognitive impairment. Certainly, I’m going to be much more aware in my practice.

Q: You also picked a study about silicosis in workers who are exposed to dust when they make engineered stone countertops, also known as quartz countertops. What were the findings?

A: Silicosis is a very serious lung condition that develops from exposure to crystalline silica. Essentially, sand gets inhaled into the lungs. Workers can be exposed when they’re making engineered stone countertops, the most popular countertops now in the United States.

This study is based on statewide surveys from 2019 to 2022 that the California Department of Public Health does routinely. They gathered cases of silicosis and found 52 — all men with an average age of 45. All but one were Latino immigrants, and most either had no insurance or very poor insurance.
 

Q: The study found that “diagnosis was delayed in 58%, with 38% presenting with advanced disease (progressive massive fibrosis), and 19% died.” What does that tell you?

A: It’s a very serious condition. Once it gets to the advanced stage, it will just continue to progress, and the person will die. That’s why it’s so important to know that it’s absolutely preventable.

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

A: If you treat a lot of immigrants or work in an area where there are a lot of industrial workers, you’re going to want to have a very high suspicion about it. If you see an atypical pattern on the chest x-ray or via diffusion scoring, have a low threshold for getting a pulmonary function test.

Doctors need to be aware and diagnose this very quickly. When patients present, you can pull them out of that work environment or put mitigation systems into place.
 

Q: California regulators were expected to put emergency rules into place in late December to protect workers. Did this study play a role in focusing attention on the problem?

A: This article, along with a commentary and podcast that we put out, really helped with advocacy to improve health and safety for workers at stone-cutting and fabrication shops.

Q: You were impressed by another study about airborne dangers, this one linking air pollution to dementia. What did researchers discover?

A: [This analysis] of more than 27,000 people in the Health and Retirement Study, a respected and rich database, found that exposure to air pollution was associated with greater rates of dementia — an increase of about 8% a year. Exposure to agricultural emissions and wildfire smoke were most robustly associated with a greater risk of dementia.

Q: How are these findings important, especially in light of the unhealthy air spawned by recent wildfires in the United States and Canada?

A: Studies like this will make it even more compelling that we are better prepared for air quality issues.

I grew up in Los Angeles, where smog and pollution were very big issues. I was constantly hearing about various mitigation strategies that were going into place. But after I moved to the East Coast, I almost never heard about prevention.

Now, I’m hoping we can keep this topic in the national conversation.
 

Q: You also highlighted a systematic review of the use of restraints in the emergency department. Why did you choose this research?

A: At JAMA Internal Medicine, we’re really focused on ways we can address health disparities and raise awareness of potential unconscious bias.

This review looked at 10 studies that included more than 2.5 million patient encounters, including 24,000 incidents of physical restraint use. They found that the overall rate of use of restraints was low at below 1%.

But when they are used, Black patients were 1.3 times more likely to be restrained than White patients.
 

Q: What’s the message here?

A: This is an important start to recognizing these differences and then changing our behavior. Perhaps restraints don’t need to be used as often in light of evidence, for example, of increased rates of misdiagnosis of psychosis in the Black population.

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

A: Restraints are not to be used to control disruption — wild behavior or verbal outbursts. They’re for when someone is a danger to themselves or others.

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

Harvard Medical School’s Sharon K. Inouye, MD, MPH, is editor in chief of JAMA Internal Medicine and a leading voice in American gerontology. We asked her to choose five of the influential journal’s most impactful studies from 2023 and highlight important take-home messages for internists and their colleagues.
 

Q: One of the studies you chose suggests that the antiviral nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) can ward off long COVID. Could you recap the findings?

A: Researchers followed a group of more than 280,000 Department of Veterans Affairs patients who were seen in 2022, had a positive COVID test, and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID. They focused on those who survived to 30 days after their COVID infection and compared those who received the drug within the first 5 days of a positive test with an equivalent control group.

They found that 13 long COVID symptoms were all significantly less common (relative risk = 0.74) in those who received nirmatrelvir. This was true no matter whether they’d ever had a COVID vaccination.
 

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

A: You can’t generalize from this to everyone because, of course, not everyone was included in this study. But it is highly suggestive that this drug is very effective for preventing long COVID.

Nirmatrelvir was touted as being able to shorten duration of illness and prevent hospitalization. But if you were low risk or you were already well into your COVID course, it wasn’t like rush, rush, rush to the doctor to get it.

This changes that equation because we know long COVID is such a huge issue. The vast majority of doctors who work with COVID patients and know this are now being more aggressive about prescribing it.
 

Q: What about patients whom the CDC considers to be at less risk — people with up-to-date vaccinations who are under 50 with mild-to-moderate COVID and no higher-risk medical conditions? Should they take nirmatrelvir?

A: The evidence is not 100% in yet. A study like this one needs to be repeated and include younger people without any risk factors to see if we see the same thing. So it’s a personal choice, and a personal calculus needs to be done. A lot of people are making that choice [to take the drug], and it can be a rational decision.

Q: You also chose a study that links high thyroid hormone levels to higher rates of dementia. What did it reveal?

A: This study looks at patients who had thyrotoxicosis — a thyroid level that’s too high — from hormone produced endogenously, and exogenously. Researchers tracked almost 66,000 patients aged 65 and older and found that thyrotoxicosis from all causes, whether it was endogenous or exogenous, was linked to an increased risk of dementia in a dose-response relationship (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.39).

Q: Is there a clinical take-home message here?

A: When we start patients on thyroid medication, they don’t always get reassessed on a regular basis. Given this finding, a TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone] level is indicated during the annual wellness check that patients on Medicare can get every year.

Q: Is TSH measured as part of routine blood tests?

A: No it’s not. It has to be ordered. I think that’s why we’re seeing this problem to begin with — because it’s not something we all have awareness about. I wasn’t aware myself that mildly high levels of thyroid could increase the risk of cognitive impairment. Certainly, I’m going to be much more aware in my practice.

Q: You also picked a study about silicosis in workers who are exposed to dust when they make engineered stone countertops, also known as quartz countertops. What were the findings?

A: Silicosis is a very serious lung condition that develops from exposure to crystalline silica. Essentially, sand gets inhaled into the lungs. Workers can be exposed when they’re making engineered stone countertops, the most popular countertops now in the United States.

This study is based on statewide surveys from 2019 to 2022 that the California Department of Public Health does routinely. They gathered cases of silicosis and found 52 — all men with an average age of 45. All but one were Latino immigrants, and most either had no insurance or very poor insurance.
 

Q: The study found that “diagnosis was delayed in 58%, with 38% presenting with advanced disease (progressive massive fibrosis), and 19% died.” What does that tell you?

A: It’s a very serious condition. Once it gets to the advanced stage, it will just continue to progress, and the person will die. That’s why it’s so important to know that it’s absolutely preventable.

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

A: If you treat a lot of immigrants or work in an area where there are a lot of industrial workers, you’re going to want to have a very high suspicion about it. If you see an atypical pattern on the chest x-ray or via diffusion scoring, have a low threshold for getting a pulmonary function test.

Doctors need to be aware and diagnose this very quickly. When patients present, you can pull them out of that work environment or put mitigation systems into place.
 

Q: California regulators were expected to put emergency rules into place in late December to protect workers. Did this study play a role in focusing attention on the problem?

A: This article, along with a commentary and podcast that we put out, really helped with advocacy to improve health and safety for workers at stone-cutting and fabrication shops.

Q: You were impressed by another study about airborne dangers, this one linking air pollution to dementia. What did researchers discover?

A: [This analysis] of more than 27,000 people in the Health and Retirement Study, a respected and rich database, found that exposure to air pollution was associated with greater rates of dementia — an increase of about 8% a year. Exposure to agricultural emissions and wildfire smoke were most robustly associated with a greater risk of dementia.

Q: How are these findings important, especially in light of the unhealthy air spawned by recent wildfires in the United States and Canada?

A: Studies like this will make it even more compelling that we are better prepared for air quality issues.

I grew up in Los Angeles, where smog and pollution were very big issues. I was constantly hearing about various mitigation strategies that were going into place. But after I moved to the East Coast, I almost never heard about prevention.

Now, I’m hoping we can keep this topic in the national conversation.
 

Q: You also highlighted a systematic review of the use of restraints in the emergency department. Why did you choose this research?

A: At JAMA Internal Medicine, we’re really focused on ways we can address health disparities and raise awareness of potential unconscious bias.

This review looked at 10 studies that included more than 2.5 million patient encounters, including 24,000 incidents of physical restraint use. They found that the overall rate of use of restraints was low at below 1%.

But when they are used, Black patients were 1.3 times more likely to be restrained than White patients.
 

Q: What’s the message here?

A: This is an important start to recognizing these differences and then changing our behavior. Perhaps restraints don’t need to be used as often in light of evidence, for example, of increased rates of misdiagnosis of psychosis in the Black population.

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

A: Restraints are not to be used to control disruption — wild behavior or verbal outbursts. They’re for when someone is a danger to themselves or others.

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

Harvard Medical School’s Sharon K. Inouye, MD, MPH, is editor in chief of JAMA Internal Medicine and a leading voice in American gerontology. We asked her to choose five of the influential journal’s most impactful studies from 2023 and highlight important take-home messages for internists and their colleagues.
 

Q: One of the studies you chose suggests that the antiviral nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) can ward off long COVID. Could you recap the findings?

A: Researchers followed a group of more than 280,000 Department of Veterans Affairs patients who were seen in 2022, had a positive COVID test, and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID. They focused on those who survived to 30 days after their COVID infection and compared those who received the drug within the first 5 days of a positive test with an equivalent control group.

They found that 13 long COVID symptoms were all significantly less common (relative risk = 0.74) in those who received nirmatrelvir. This was true no matter whether they’d ever had a COVID vaccination.
 

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

A: You can’t generalize from this to everyone because, of course, not everyone was included in this study. But it is highly suggestive that this drug is very effective for preventing long COVID.

Nirmatrelvir was touted as being able to shorten duration of illness and prevent hospitalization. But if you were low risk or you were already well into your COVID course, it wasn’t like rush, rush, rush to the doctor to get it.

This changes that equation because we know long COVID is such a huge issue. The vast majority of doctors who work with COVID patients and know this are now being more aggressive about prescribing it.
 

Q: What about patients whom the CDC considers to be at less risk — people with up-to-date vaccinations who are under 50 with mild-to-moderate COVID and no higher-risk medical conditions? Should they take nirmatrelvir?

A: The evidence is not 100% in yet. A study like this one needs to be repeated and include younger people without any risk factors to see if we see the same thing. So it’s a personal choice, and a personal calculus needs to be done. A lot of people are making that choice [to take the drug], and it can be a rational decision.

Q: You also chose a study that links high thyroid hormone levels to higher rates of dementia. What did it reveal?

A: This study looks at patients who had thyrotoxicosis — a thyroid level that’s too high — from hormone produced endogenously, and exogenously. Researchers tracked almost 66,000 patients aged 65 and older and found that thyrotoxicosis from all causes, whether it was endogenous or exogenous, was linked to an increased risk of dementia in a dose-response relationship (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.39).

Q: Is there a clinical take-home message here?

A: When we start patients on thyroid medication, they don’t always get reassessed on a regular basis. Given this finding, a TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone] level is indicated during the annual wellness check that patients on Medicare can get every year.

Q: Is TSH measured as part of routine blood tests?

A: No it’s not. It has to be ordered. I think that’s why we’re seeing this problem to begin with — because it’s not something we all have awareness about. I wasn’t aware myself that mildly high levels of thyroid could increase the risk of cognitive impairment. Certainly, I’m going to be much more aware in my practice.

Q: You also picked a study about silicosis in workers who are exposed to dust when they make engineered stone countertops, also known as quartz countertops. What were the findings?

A: Silicosis is a very serious lung condition that develops from exposure to crystalline silica. Essentially, sand gets inhaled into the lungs. Workers can be exposed when they’re making engineered stone countertops, the most popular countertops now in the United States.

This study is based on statewide surveys from 2019 to 2022 that the California Department of Public Health does routinely. They gathered cases of silicosis and found 52 — all men with an average age of 45. All but one were Latino immigrants, and most either had no insurance or very poor insurance.
 

Q: The study found that “diagnosis was delayed in 58%, with 38% presenting with advanced disease (progressive massive fibrosis), and 19% died.” What does that tell you?

A: It’s a very serious condition. Once it gets to the advanced stage, it will just continue to progress, and the person will die. That’s why it’s so important to know that it’s absolutely preventable.

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

A: If you treat a lot of immigrants or work in an area where there are a lot of industrial workers, you’re going to want to have a very high suspicion about it. If you see an atypical pattern on the chest x-ray or via diffusion scoring, have a low threshold for getting a pulmonary function test.

Doctors need to be aware and diagnose this very quickly. When patients present, you can pull them out of that work environment or put mitigation systems into place.
 

Q: California regulators were expected to put emergency rules into place in late December to protect workers. Did this study play a role in focusing attention on the problem?

A: This article, along with a commentary and podcast that we put out, really helped with advocacy to improve health and safety for workers at stone-cutting and fabrication shops.

Q: You were impressed by another study about airborne dangers, this one linking air pollution to dementia. What did researchers discover?

A: [This analysis] of more than 27,000 people in the Health and Retirement Study, a respected and rich database, found that exposure to air pollution was associated with greater rates of dementia — an increase of about 8% a year. Exposure to agricultural emissions and wildfire smoke were most robustly associated with a greater risk of dementia.

Q: How are these findings important, especially in light of the unhealthy air spawned by recent wildfires in the United States and Canada?

A: Studies like this will make it even more compelling that we are better prepared for air quality issues.

I grew up in Los Angeles, where smog and pollution were very big issues. I was constantly hearing about various mitigation strategies that were going into place. But after I moved to the East Coast, I almost never heard about prevention.

Now, I’m hoping we can keep this topic in the national conversation.
 

Q: You also highlighted a systematic review of the use of restraints in the emergency department. Why did you choose this research?

A: At JAMA Internal Medicine, we’re really focused on ways we can address health disparities and raise awareness of potential unconscious bias.

This review looked at 10 studies that included more than 2.5 million patient encounters, including 24,000 incidents of physical restraint use. They found that the overall rate of use of restraints was low at below 1%.

But when they are used, Black patients were 1.3 times more likely to be restrained than White patients.
 

Q: What’s the message here?

A: This is an important start to recognizing these differences and then changing our behavior. Perhaps restraints don’t need to be used as often in light of evidence, for example, of increased rates of misdiagnosis of psychosis in the Black population.

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

A: Restraints are not to be used to control disruption — wild behavior or verbal outbursts. They’re for when someone is a danger to themselves or others.

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The average age of death for Black U.S. patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) rose from 39 years (females = 40, males = 38) in 1999-2009 to 43 years (females = 44, males = 41) in 2010-2020, reflecting improvements in treatment, a new study finds.

But the news is not all positive. Mortality rates still jumped markedly as patients transitioned from pediatric to adult care, lead author Kristine A. Karkoska, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncologist with the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This reflects that young adults are getting lost to care, and then they’re presenting with acute, life-threatening complications,” she said. “We still need more emphasis on comprehensive lifetime sickle-cell care and the transition to adult clinics to improve mortality in young adults.”

According to Dr. Karkoska, researchers launched the analysis of sickle-cell mortality rates to update previously available data up to the year 2009, which showed improvements as current standard-of-care treatments were introduced. Updated numbers, she said, would reflect the influence of a rise in dedicated SCD clinics and a 2014 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendation that all children with SCD be treated with hydroxyurea starting at 9 months.

For the study, Dr. Karkoska and colleagues analyzed mortality statistics from the period of 1979-2020 via a CDC database. They found that 5272 Black patients died of SCD from 2010 to 2020. The crude mortality rate was 1.1 per 100,000 Black people, lower than the 1.2 per 100,000 rate of 1999-2009 (P < .0001).

The researchers also found that from 2010 to 2020, the mortality rate jumped for patients in the 15-19 to 20-24 age group: It rose from 0.9 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000, P < .0001).

The researchers also examined contributors to death other than SCD. In 39% of cases, underlying causes were noted: cardiovascular disease (28%), accidents (7%), cerebrovascular disease (7%), malignancy (6%), septicemia (4.8%), and renal disease (3.8%). The population of people with SCD is “getting older, and they’re developing a combination of both sickle-related chronic organ damage as well as non-sickle-related chronic disease,” Dr. Karkoska said.

She noted that limitations include a reliance on data that can be incomplete or inaccurate. She also mentioned that the study only focuses on Black patients, who make up the vast majority of those with SCD.

How good is the news about improved mortality numbers? One member of the audience at the ASH presentation was disappointed that they hadn’t gotten even better. “I was hoping to come here to be cheered up,” he said, “and I’m not.”

Three physicians who didn’t take part in the research but are familiar with the new study spoke in interviews about the findings.

Michael Bender, MD, PhD, director of the Odessa Brown Comprehensive Sickle Cell Clinic in Seattle, pointed out that mortality rates improve slowly over time, as new treatments enter the picture. When new therapies come along, he said, “it’s tough if someone’s already 40 years old and their body has gone through a lot. They’re not going to have as much benefit as someone who started [on therapy] when they were 5 years old, and they grew up with that improvement.”

Sickle cell specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said that the data showing a spike in mortality rates during the pediatric-adult transition are not surprising but still “really hard to digest.”

“It is a testament to the fact that we are not meeting patients where they are,” she said. “We struggle immensely with the transition period. This is something that is difficult across all providers all over the country,” she said. “There are different ways to ensure a successful transition from the pediatric side to the adult side. Here at Mayo Clinic, we use a slow transition, and we rotate appointments with peds and adults until age 30.”

Sophie Miriam Lanzkron, MD, MHS, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said increases in mortality in the post-pediatric period appear to be due in part to “lack of access to high-quality sickle cell care for adults because there aren’t enough hematologists.” Worsening disease due to aging is another factor, she said, and “there might also be some behavioral changes. Young people think they will live forever. Sometimes they choose not to adhere to medical recommendations, which for this population is very risky.”

Dr. Lanzkron said her team is developing a long-term patient registry that should provide more insight.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Karkoska had no disclosures. The other coauthor disclosed research funding and safety advisory board relationships with Novartis. Dr. Ferdjallah, Dr. Lanzkron, and Dr. Bender reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — The average age of death for Black U.S. patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) rose from 39 years (females = 40, males = 38) in 1999-2009 to 43 years (females = 44, males = 41) in 2010-2020, reflecting improvements in treatment, a new study finds.

But the news is not all positive. Mortality rates still jumped markedly as patients transitioned from pediatric to adult care, lead author Kristine A. Karkoska, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncologist with the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This reflects that young adults are getting lost to care, and then they’re presenting with acute, life-threatening complications,” she said. “We still need more emphasis on comprehensive lifetime sickle-cell care and the transition to adult clinics to improve mortality in young adults.”

According to Dr. Karkoska, researchers launched the analysis of sickle-cell mortality rates to update previously available data up to the year 2009, which showed improvements as current standard-of-care treatments were introduced. Updated numbers, she said, would reflect the influence of a rise in dedicated SCD clinics and a 2014 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendation that all children with SCD be treated with hydroxyurea starting at 9 months.

For the study, Dr. Karkoska and colleagues analyzed mortality statistics from the period of 1979-2020 via a CDC database. They found that 5272 Black patients died of SCD from 2010 to 2020. The crude mortality rate was 1.1 per 100,000 Black people, lower than the 1.2 per 100,000 rate of 1999-2009 (P < .0001).

The researchers also found that from 2010 to 2020, the mortality rate jumped for patients in the 15-19 to 20-24 age group: It rose from 0.9 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000, P < .0001).

The researchers also examined contributors to death other than SCD. In 39% of cases, underlying causes were noted: cardiovascular disease (28%), accidents (7%), cerebrovascular disease (7%), malignancy (6%), septicemia (4.8%), and renal disease (3.8%). The population of people with SCD is “getting older, and they’re developing a combination of both sickle-related chronic organ damage as well as non-sickle-related chronic disease,” Dr. Karkoska said.

She noted that limitations include a reliance on data that can be incomplete or inaccurate. She also mentioned that the study only focuses on Black patients, who make up the vast majority of those with SCD.

How good is the news about improved mortality numbers? One member of the audience at the ASH presentation was disappointed that they hadn’t gotten even better. “I was hoping to come here to be cheered up,” he said, “and I’m not.”

Three physicians who didn’t take part in the research but are familiar with the new study spoke in interviews about the findings.

Michael Bender, MD, PhD, director of the Odessa Brown Comprehensive Sickle Cell Clinic in Seattle, pointed out that mortality rates improve slowly over time, as new treatments enter the picture. When new therapies come along, he said, “it’s tough if someone’s already 40 years old and their body has gone through a lot. They’re not going to have as much benefit as someone who started [on therapy] when they were 5 years old, and they grew up with that improvement.”

Sickle cell specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said that the data showing a spike in mortality rates during the pediatric-adult transition are not surprising but still “really hard to digest.”

“It is a testament to the fact that we are not meeting patients where they are,” she said. “We struggle immensely with the transition period. This is something that is difficult across all providers all over the country,” she said. “There are different ways to ensure a successful transition from the pediatric side to the adult side. Here at Mayo Clinic, we use a slow transition, and we rotate appointments with peds and adults until age 30.”

Sophie Miriam Lanzkron, MD, MHS, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said increases in mortality in the post-pediatric period appear to be due in part to “lack of access to high-quality sickle cell care for adults because there aren’t enough hematologists.” Worsening disease due to aging is another factor, she said, and “there might also be some behavioral changes. Young people think they will live forever. Sometimes they choose not to adhere to medical recommendations, which for this population is very risky.”

Dr. Lanzkron said her team is developing a long-term patient registry that should provide more insight.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Karkoska had no disclosures. The other coauthor disclosed research funding and safety advisory board relationships with Novartis. Dr. Ferdjallah, Dr. Lanzkron, and Dr. Bender reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — The average age of death for Black U.S. patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) rose from 39 years (females = 40, males = 38) in 1999-2009 to 43 years (females = 44, males = 41) in 2010-2020, reflecting improvements in treatment, a new study finds.

But the news is not all positive. Mortality rates still jumped markedly as patients transitioned from pediatric to adult care, lead author Kristine A. Karkoska, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncologist with the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This reflects that young adults are getting lost to care, and then they’re presenting with acute, life-threatening complications,” she said. “We still need more emphasis on comprehensive lifetime sickle-cell care and the transition to adult clinics to improve mortality in young adults.”

According to Dr. Karkoska, researchers launched the analysis of sickle-cell mortality rates to update previously available data up to the year 2009, which showed improvements as current standard-of-care treatments were introduced. Updated numbers, she said, would reflect the influence of a rise in dedicated SCD clinics and a 2014 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendation that all children with SCD be treated with hydroxyurea starting at 9 months.

For the study, Dr. Karkoska and colleagues analyzed mortality statistics from the period of 1979-2020 via a CDC database. They found that 5272 Black patients died of SCD from 2010 to 2020. The crude mortality rate was 1.1 per 100,000 Black people, lower than the 1.2 per 100,000 rate of 1999-2009 (P < .0001).

The researchers also found that from 2010 to 2020, the mortality rate jumped for patients in the 15-19 to 20-24 age group: It rose from 0.9 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000, P < .0001).

The researchers also examined contributors to death other than SCD. In 39% of cases, underlying causes were noted: cardiovascular disease (28%), accidents (7%), cerebrovascular disease (7%), malignancy (6%), septicemia (4.8%), and renal disease (3.8%). The population of people with SCD is “getting older, and they’re developing a combination of both sickle-related chronic organ damage as well as non-sickle-related chronic disease,” Dr. Karkoska said.

She noted that limitations include a reliance on data that can be incomplete or inaccurate. She also mentioned that the study only focuses on Black patients, who make up the vast majority of those with SCD.

How good is the news about improved mortality numbers? One member of the audience at the ASH presentation was disappointed that they hadn’t gotten even better. “I was hoping to come here to be cheered up,” he said, “and I’m not.”

Three physicians who didn’t take part in the research but are familiar with the new study spoke in interviews about the findings.

Michael Bender, MD, PhD, director of the Odessa Brown Comprehensive Sickle Cell Clinic in Seattle, pointed out that mortality rates improve slowly over time, as new treatments enter the picture. When new therapies come along, he said, “it’s tough if someone’s already 40 years old and their body has gone through a lot. They’re not going to have as much benefit as someone who started [on therapy] when they were 5 years old, and they grew up with that improvement.”

Sickle cell specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said that the data showing a spike in mortality rates during the pediatric-adult transition are not surprising but still “really hard to digest.”

“It is a testament to the fact that we are not meeting patients where they are,” she said. “We struggle immensely with the transition period. This is something that is difficult across all providers all over the country,” she said. “There are different ways to ensure a successful transition from the pediatric side to the adult side. Here at Mayo Clinic, we use a slow transition, and we rotate appointments with peds and adults until age 30.”

Sophie Miriam Lanzkron, MD, MHS, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said increases in mortality in the post-pediatric period appear to be due in part to “lack of access to high-quality sickle cell care for adults because there aren’t enough hematologists.” Worsening disease due to aging is another factor, she said, and “there might also be some behavioral changes. Young people think they will live forever. Sometimes they choose not to adhere to medical recommendations, which for this population is very risky.”

Dr. Lanzkron said her team is developing a long-term patient registry that should provide more insight.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Karkoska had no disclosures. The other coauthor disclosed research funding and safety advisory board relationships with Novartis. Dr. Ferdjallah, Dr. Lanzkron, and Dr. Bender reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — A small group of adult and pediatric patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) reached high 2-year survival after undergoing reduced-intensity haploidentical stem cell transplantation, a new phase 2 trial reports. It is much easier to find eligible haploidentical donors — half-matched or partially matched — than eligible hematopoietic donors.

Of 42 patients aged 15-45 who were fully treated, 95% survived to 2 years post transplant (overall survival, (95% CI, 81.5%-98.7%), and 88% reached the primary endpoint of event-free survival at 2 years (95% CI, 73.5%-94.8%), according to the findings, which were released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

At an ASH news briefing, study lead author Adetola A. Kassim, MBBS, MS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, said the results support haploidentical stem cell transplants “as a suitable and tolerable curative therapy for adults with sickle cell disease and severe end-organ toxicity such as stroke or pulmonary hypertension, a population typically excluded from participating in gene therapy.”

Dr. Kassim added that the findings are especially promising since there are so many potential donors in stem-cell transplants: “Your siblings can be donors, your parents can be donors, your cousins can be donors. First-, second-, and third-degree relatives can be donors. So there’s really endless donors within the family.”

In an interview, Mayo Clinic SCD specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings, said stem cell transplant is the only option to cure SCD.

“This is advantageous because SCD is otherwise a chronic disease that is marked by chronic pain, risk of stroke, frequent interruptions of school/work due to sick days, and decreased life span,” she said. “Most patients, assuming they can tolerate the conditioning chemotherapy that is given before transplant, are eligible.”

Matched sibling donors are preferable, but they can be hard to find, she said. It hasn’t been clear whether half-matched donors are feasible options in SCD, she said. “This means that, if you are a patient with sickle cell disease, and you don’t have a suitable matched donor, haploidentical transplant is not a recommendation we can make outside of enrollment in a clinical trial.”

For the study, researchers enlisted 54 patients with SCD and prior stroke, recurrent acute chest syndrome or pain, chronic transfusion regimen, or tricuspid valve regurgitant jet velocity ≥2.7 m/sec. Participants had to have an HLA-haploidentical first-degree relative donor who would donate bone marrow.

“The median age was 22.8 years at enrollment; 47/54 (87%) of enrolled participants had hemoglobin SS disease, 40/54 (74.1%) had a Lansky/Karnofsky score of 90-100 at baseline, and 41/54 (75.9%) had an HLA match score of 4/8,” the researchers reported. “Recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes (38.9%), acute chest syndrome (16.8%), and overt stroke (16.7%) were the most common indications for transplant.”

“We knew going into this that we were going to get very high-risk patients,” Dr. Kassim said.

Forty-two patients went through with transplants. As for adverse events, 2 patients died, all within the first year, of organ failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome; 4.8% of participants had primary graft failure, and 2.4% had secondary graft failure before day 100. “The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute GVHD [graft-versus-host disease] at day 100 was 26.2% (95% CI, 14.0%-40.2%), and grades III-IV acute GVHD at day 100 was 4.8% (95% CI, 0.9%-14.4%).”

The outcomes are similar to those in transplants with matched sibling donors, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Ferdjallah said the new study is “robust” and impressive, although it’s small.

“As a clinician, these are the kind of outcomes I have been hoping for,” Dr. Ferdjallah said. “I have been very reluctant to suggest haploidentical transplant for my sickle cell disease patients. However, reviewing the results of this study with my motivated patients and families can help us both to use shared medical decision-making and come together with what is best for that specific patient.”

As for adverse events, she said they “confirm a fear of using haploidentical transplant, which is graft failure. Fortunately, out of 42 who proceeded to transplant, only 2 had primary graft failure and 1 had secondary graft failure. This is not overtly a large number. Of course, we would hope for more durable engraftment. The other side effects including GVHD and infection are all to be expected.”

As for cost, Dr. Kassim said the transplants run from $200,000 to $400,000 vs over $2 million for gene therapy, and Dr. Ferdjallah said insurance is likely to cover the treatment.

Moving ahead, Dr. Ferdjallah said she looks forward to getting study data about pediatric patients specifically. For now, “we should consider HLA-haploidentical seriously in patients with sickle cell disease and no available HLA-matched donors.”

Grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Cancer Institute funded the study. Dr. Kassim had no disclosures. Some other authors disclosed various and multiple relationships with industry. Dr. Ferdjallah has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — A small group of adult and pediatric patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) reached high 2-year survival after undergoing reduced-intensity haploidentical stem cell transplantation, a new phase 2 trial reports. It is much easier to find eligible haploidentical donors — half-matched or partially matched — than eligible hematopoietic donors.

Of 42 patients aged 15-45 who were fully treated, 95% survived to 2 years post transplant (overall survival, (95% CI, 81.5%-98.7%), and 88% reached the primary endpoint of event-free survival at 2 years (95% CI, 73.5%-94.8%), according to the findings, which were released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

At an ASH news briefing, study lead author Adetola A. Kassim, MBBS, MS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, said the results support haploidentical stem cell transplants “as a suitable and tolerable curative therapy for adults with sickle cell disease and severe end-organ toxicity such as stroke or pulmonary hypertension, a population typically excluded from participating in gene therapy.”

Dr. Kassim added that the findings are especially promising since there are so many potential donors in stem-cell transplants: “Your siblings can be donors, your parents can be donors, your cousins can be donors. First-, second-, and third-degree relatives can be donors. So there’s really endless donors within the family.”

In an interview, Mayo Clinic SCD specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings, said stem cell transplant is the only option to cure SCD.

“This is advantageous because SCD is otherwise a chronic disease that is marked by chronic pain, risk of stroke, frequent interruptions of school/work due to sick days, and decreased life span,” she said. “Most patients, assuming they can tolerate the conditioning chemotherapy that is given before transplant, are eligible.”

Matched sibling donors are preferable, but they can be hard to find, she said. It hasn’t been clear whether half-matched donors are feasible options in SCD, she said. “This means that, if you are a patient with sickle cell disease, and you don’t have a suitable matched donor, haploidentical transplant is not a recommendation we can make outside of enrollment in a clinical trial.”

For the study, researchers enlisted 54 patients with SCD and prior stroke, recurrent acute chest syndrome or pain, chronic transfusion regimen, or tricuspid valve regurgitant jet velocity ≥2.7 m/sec. Participants had to have an HLA-haploidentical first-degree relative donor who would donate bone marrow.

“The median age was 22.8 years at enrollment; 47/54 (87%) of enrolled participants had hemoglobin SS disease, 40/54 (74.1%) had a Lansky/Karnofsky score of 90-100 at baseline, and 41/54 (75.9%) had an HLA match score of 4/8,” the researchers reported. “Recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes (38.9%), acute chest syndrome (16.8%), and overt stroke (16.7%) were the most common indications for transplant.”

“We knew going into this that we were going to get very high-risk patients,” Dr. Kassim said.

Forty-two patients went through with transplants. As for adverse events, 2 patients died, all within the first year, of organ failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome; 4.8% of participants had primary graft failure, and 2.4% had secondary graft failure before day 100. “The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute GVHD [graft-versus-host disease] at day 100 was 26.2% (95% CI, 14.0%-40.2%), and grades III-IV acute GVHD at day 100 was 4.8% (95% CI, 0.9%-14.4%).”

The outcomes are similar to those in transplants with matched sibling donors, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Ferdjallah said the new study is “robust” and impressive, although it’s small.

“As a clinician, these are the kind of outcomes I have been hoping for,” Dr. Ferdjallah said. “I have been very reluctant to suggest haploidentical transplant for my sickle cell disease patients. However, reviewing the results of this study with my motivated patients and families can help us both to use shared medical decision-making and come together with what is best for that specific patient.”

As for adverse events, she said they “confirm a fear of using haploidentical transplant, which is graft failure. Fortunately, out of 42 who proceeded to transplant, only 2 had primary graft failure and 1 had secondary graft failure. This is not overtly a large number. Of course, we would hope for more durable engraftment. The other side effects including GVHD and infection are all to be expected.”

As for cost, Dr. Kassim said the transplants run from $200,000 to $400,000 vs over $2 million for gene therapy, and Dr. Ferdjallah said insurance is likely to cover the treatment.

Moving ahead, Dr. Ferdjallah said she looks forward to getting study data about pediatric patients specifically. For now, “we should consider HLA-haploidentical seriously in patients with sickle cell disease and no available HLA-matched donors.”

Grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Cancer Institute funded the study. Dr. Kassim had no disclosures. Some other authors disclosed various and multiple relationships with industry. Dr. Ferdjallah has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — A small group of adult and pediatric patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) reached high 2-year survival after undergoing reduced-intensity haploidentical stem cell transplantation, a new phase 2 trial reports. It is much easier to find eligible haploidentical donors — half-matched or partially matched — than eligible hematopoietic donors.

Of 42 patients aged 15-45 who were fully treated, 95% survived to 2 years post transplant (overall survival, (95% CI, 81.5%-98.7%), and 88% reached the primary endpoint of event-free survival at 2 years (95% CI, 73.5%-94.8%), according to the findings, which were released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

At an ASH news briefing, study lead author Adetola A. Kassim, MBBS, MS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, said the results support haploidentical stem cell transplants “as a suitable and tolerable curative therapy for adults with sickle cell disease and severe end-organ toxicity such as stroke or pulmonary hypertension, a population typically excluded from participating in gene therapy.”

Dr. Kassim added that the findings are especially promising since there are so many potential donors in stem-cell transplants: “Your siblings can be donors, your parents can be donors, your cousins can be donors. First-, second-, and third-degree relatives can be donors. So there’s really endless donors within the family.”

In an interview, Mayo Clinic SCD specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings, said stem cell transplant is the only option to cure SCD.

“This is advantageous because SCD is otherwise a chronic disease that is marked by chronic pain, risk of stroke, frequent interruptions of school/work due to sick days, and decreased life span,” she said. “Most patients, assuming they can tolerate the conditioning chemotherapy that is given before transplant, are eligible.”

Matched sibling donors are preferable, but they can be hard to find, she said. It hasn’t been clear whether half-matched donors are feasible options in SCD, she said. “This means that, if you are a patient with sickle cell disease, and you don’t have a suitable matched donor, haploidentical transplant is not a recommendation we can make outside of enrollment in a clinical trial.”

For the study, researchers enlisted 54 patients with SCD and prior stroke, recurrent acute chest syndrome or pain, chronic transfusion regimen, or tricuspid valve regurgitant jet velocity ≥2.7 m/sec. Participants had to have an HLA-haploidentical first-degree relative donor who would donate bone marrow.

“The median age was 22.8 years at enrollment; 47/54 (87%) of enrolled participants had hemoglobin SS disease, 40/54 (74.1%) had a Lansky/Karnofsky score of 90-100 at baseline, and 41/54 (75.9%) had an HLA match score of 4/8,” the researchers reported. “Recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes (38.9%), acute chest syndrome (16.8%), and overt stroke (16.7%) were the most common indications for transplant.”

“We knew going into this that we were going to get very high-risk patients,” Dr. Kassim said.

Forty-two patients went through with transplants. As for adverse events, 2 patients died, all within the first year, of organ failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome; 4.8% of participants had primary graft failure, and 2.4% had secondary graft failure before day 100. “The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute GVHD [graft-versus-host disease] at day 100 was 26.2% (95% CI, 14.0%-40.2%), and grades III-IV acute GVHD at day 100 was 4.8% (95% CI, 0.9%-14.4%).”

The outcomes are similar to those in transplants with matched sibling donors, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Ferdjallah said the new study is “robust” and impressive, although it’s small.

“As a clinician, these are the kind of outcomes I have been hoping for,” Dr. Ferdjallah said. “I have been very reluctant to suggest haploidentical transplant for my sickle cell disease patients. However, reviewing the results of this study with my motivated patients and families can help us both to use shared medical decision-making and come together with what is best for that specific patient.”

As for adverse events, she said they “confirm a fear of using haploidentical transplant, which is graft failure. Fortunately, out of 42 who proceeded to transplant, only 2 had primary graft failure and 1 had secondary graft failure. This is not overtly a large number. Of course, we would hope for more durable engraftment. The other side effects including GVHD and infection are all to be expected.”

As for cost, Dr. Kassim said the transplants run from $200,000 to $400,000 vs over $2 million for gene therapy, and Dr. Ferdjallah said insurance is likely to cover the treatment.

Moving ahead, Dr. Ferdjallah said she looks forward to getting study data about pediatric patients specifically. For now, “we should consider HLA-haploidentical seriously in patients with sickle cell disease and no available HLA-matched donors.”

Grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Cancer Institute funded the study. Dr. Kassim had no disclosures. Some other authors disclosed various and multiple relationships with industry. Dr. Ferdjallah has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Median progression-free survival (PFS) improved by about 10 months in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who were treated with both ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis of a new study finds. However, there was a statistically significant difference in overall survival between the groups.

Still, “in the countries where ibrutinib is indicated, this combination should be a new standard therapy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Its use would be off label, according to the authors of the industry-funded trial, because no nation has approved the combination therapy for MCL, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

As Dr. Wang noted, ibrutinib (a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat MCL, while venetoclax (a BCL-2 inhibitor) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. “The combination of these two agents leverages complementary modes of action and has demonstrated synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical models of mantle cell lymphoma,” he said. And “in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, promising clinical activity has also been observed in early-phase studies.”

For the multinational, randomized, phase 3, double-blind SYMPATICO study, researchers assigned 267 adults with relapsed/refractory MCL after 1-5 prior therapies 1:1 to receive oral ibrutinib 560 mg daily with oral venetoclax (standard 5-wk ramp-up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily) or placebo for 2 years. Then they continued with ibrutinib alone until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.

The study began in 2017. The median age of patients was 68, and the numbers of patients in each group were 134 (both drugs) and 133 (ibrutinib plus placebo).

At a median of 51.2 months, median PFS — the primary endpoint — was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone (31.9 vs. 22.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]=0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.88, P = .0052). While overall survival was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis found that the difference was not statistically significant (44.9 months vs. 38.6 months, 95% CI, HR = 0.85, 0.62-1.19, P = .3465).

When questioned about this finding at the ASH news briefing, Dr. Wang said that 170 events are needed for a full overall survival analysis, and there are just 144 now. The study may reach that point in early 2025, he said.

Over a median treatment duration of 22.0 months for the combination treatment and 17.7 months for ibrutinib alone, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 84% and 76% of patients, respectively. At 60%, the level of serious adverse events was the same in both groups.

In an interview, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, noted that in general, MCL “has a pretty relentless pattern of relapses and disease progression without an easy cure in the vast majority of patients.”

Ibrutinib has revolutionized treatment over the past decade with generally manageable side effects, and clinicians are now turning to other Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he said. Still, “there is a need for improving the durability and the response rates second-line treatment or beyond,” Dr. Hill said.

The new study is important since it’s the first randomized trial “that demonstrates that additional venetoclax significantly improves not only response rates, but also progression-free survival with a trend toward overall survival,” he said. “The toxicity profile doesn’t really seem to be significantly more worse than what we might expect with each agent given individually.”

However, Dr. Hill noted that “it’s a relatively small study and relatively short follow-up.”

It may be difficult to get an ibrutinib-venetoclax combination approved today since ibrutinib is no longer the preferred Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor for clinicians, he said.

Pharmacyclics, maker of ibrutinib, is the study sponsor and Janssen is a collaborator.

Dr. Wang reports research funding Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Genentech, Innocare, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, and VelosBio. Other authors report multiple and various relationships with industry. Dr. Hill discloses research funding and consulting relationships with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca.

SAN DIEGO — Median progression-free survival (PFS) improved by about 10 months in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who were treated with both ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis of a new study finds. However, there was a statistically significant difference in overall survival between the groups.

Still, “in the countries where ibrutinib is indicated, this combination should be a new standard therapy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Its use would be off label, according to the authors of the industry-funded trial, because no nation has approved the combination therapy for MCL, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

As Dr. Wang noted, ibrutinib (a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat MCL, while venetoclax (a BCL-2 inhibitor) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. “The combination of these two agents leverages complementary modes of action and has demonstrated synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical models of mantle cell lymphoma,” he said. And “in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, promising clinical activity has also been observed in early-phase studies.”

For the multinational, randomized, phase 3, double-blind SYMPATICO study, researchers assigned 267 adults with relapsed/refractory MCL after 1-5 prior therapies 1:1 to receive oral ibrutinib 560 mg daily with oral venetoclax (standard 5-wk ramp-up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily) or placebo for 2 years. Then they continued with ibrutinib alone until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.

The study began in 2017. The median age of patients was 68, and the numbers of patients in each group were 134 (both drugs) and 133 (ibrutinib plus placebo).

At a median of 51.2 months, median PFS — the primary endpoint — was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone (31.9 vs. 22.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]=0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.88, P = .0052). While overall survival was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis found that the difference was not statistically significant (44.9 months vs. 38.6 months, 95% CI, HR = 0.85, 0.62-1.19, P = .3465).

When questioned about this finding at the ASH news briefing, Dr. Wang said that 170 events are needed for a full overall survival analysis, and there are just 144 now. The study may reach that point in early 2025, he said.

Over a median treatment duration of 22.0 months for the combination treatment and 17.7 months for ibrutinib alone, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 84% and 76% of patients, respectively. At 60%, the level of serious adverse events was the same in both groups.

In an interview, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, noted that in general, MCL “has a pretty relentless pattern of relapses and disease progression without an easy cure in the vast majority of patients.”

Ibrutinib has revolutionized treatment over the past decade with generally manageable side effects, and clinicians are now turning to other Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he said. Still, “there is a need for improving the durability and the response rates second-line treatment or beyond,” Dr. Hill said.

The new study is important since it’s the first randomized trial “that demonstrates that additional venetoclax significantly improves not only response rates, but also progression-free survival with a trend toward overall survival,” he said. “The toxicity profile doesn’t really seem to be significantly more worse than what we might expect with each agent given individually.”

However, Dr. Hill noted that “it’s a relatively small study and relatively short follow-up.”

It may be difficult to get an ibrutinib-venetoclax combination approved today since ibrutinib is no longer the preferred Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor for clinicians, he said.

Pharmacyclics, maker of ibrutinib, is the study sponsor and Janssen is a collaborator.

Dr. Wang reports research funding Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Genentech, Innocare, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, and VelosBio. Other authors report multiple and various relationships with industry. Dr. Hill discloses research funding and consulting relationships with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca.

SAN DIEGO — Median progression-free survival (PFS) improved by about 10 months in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who were treated with both ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and venetoclax (Venclexta) vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis of a new study finds. However, there was a statistically significant difference in overall survival between the groups.

Still, “in the countries where ibrutinib is indicated, this combination should be a new standard therapy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Its use would be off label, according to the authors of the industry-funded trial, because no nation has approved the combination therapy for MCL, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

As Dr. Wang noted, ibrutinib (a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat MCL, while venetoclax (a BCL-2 inhibitor) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. “The combination of these two agents leverages complementary modes of action and has demonstrated synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical models of mantle cell lymphoma,” he said. And “in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, promising clinical activity has also been observed in early-phase studies.”

For the multinational, randomized, phase 3, double-blind SYMPATICO study, researchers assigned 267 adults with relapsed/refractory MCL after 1-5 prior therapies 1:1 to receive oral ibrutinib 560 mg daily with oral venetoclax (standard 5-wk ramp-up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily) or placebo for 2 years. Then they continued with ibrutinib alone until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.

The study began in 2017. The median age of patients was 68, and the numbers of patients in each group were 134 (both drugs) and 133 (ibrutinib plus placebo).

At a median of 51.2 months, median PFS — the primary endpoint — was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone (31.9 vs. 22.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]=0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.88, P = .0052). While overall survival was higher in the combination group vs. ibrutinib alone, an interim analysis found that the difference was not statistically significant (44.9 months vs. 38.6 months, 95% CI, HR = 0.85, 0.62-1.19, P = .3465).

When questioned about this finding at the ASH news briefing, Dr. Wang said that 170 events are needed for a full overall survival analysis, and there are just 144 now. The study may reach that point in early 2025, he said.

Over a median treatment duration of 22.0 months for the combination treatment and 17.7 months for ibrutinib alone, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 84% and 76% of patients, respectively. At 60%, the level of serious adverse events was the same in both groups.

In an interview, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, noted that in general, MCL “has a pretty relentless pattern of relapses and disease progression without an easy cure in the vast majority of patients.”

Ibrutinib has revolutionized treatment over the past decade with generally manageable side effects, and clinicians are now turning to other Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he said. Still, “there is a need for improving the durability and the response rates second-line treatment or beyond,” Dr. Hill said.

The new study is important since it’s the first randomized trial “that demonstrates that additional venetoclax significantly improves not only response rates, but also progression-free survival with a trend toward overall survival,” he said. “The toxicity profile doesn’t really seem to be significantly more worse than what we might expect with each agent given individually.”

However, Dr. Hill noted that “it’s a relatively small study and relatively short follow-up.”

It may be difficult to get an ibrutinib-venetoclax combination approved today since ibrutinib is no longer the preferred Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor for clinicians, he said.

Pharmacyclics, maker of ibrutinib, is the study sponsor and Janssen is a collaborator.

Dr. Wang reports research funding Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Genentech, Innocare, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, and VelosBio. Other authors report multiple and various relationships with industry. Dr. Hill discloses research funding and consulting relationships with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca.

SAN DIEGO — In the real world, outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma who received standard regimens were dramatically worse than those reported in clinical trials, a new study found. 

The analysis, which included nearly 4,000 patients with multiple myeloma, revealed that patients in a real-world setting demonstrated worse progression-free and overall survival on six of seven standard treatments compared with patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Lead author Alissa Visram, MD, MPH, who spoke about the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, said the findings will likely change the way she speaks to patients about their potential outcomes. 

“I’ll probably present both numbers [from real-life and clinical-trial data] and give them a sense of the best-case scenario,” Dr. Visram said during an ASH media briefing. But she said she will also caution her patients that the real-world numbers reflect how people on these drugs actually fare. 

The effectiveness of multiple myeloma drugs remains unclear outside the clinical trial setting, explained Dr. Visram, of the Division of Hematology at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Outcomes from randomized controlled trials form the basis of drug approvals but many patients in the real world do not meet the “stringent” trial inclusion criteria. 

Dr. Visram and colleagues launched the current study to better understand the potential differences between real-world and clinical trial outcomes. In the analysis, the researchers compared real-world outcomes among patients receiving seven standard multiple myeloma regimens covered by Ontario’s public health plan with patient outcomes reported in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. 

The retrospective study included 3951 patients with newly diagnosed and refractory multiple myeloma treated from 2007 to 2020 in Ontario. Regimens for newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients included lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and triple therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Regimens for patients with relapsed disease included pomalidomide plus dexamethasone or carfilzomib plus dexamethasone as well as triple combinations including carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Overall, Dr. Visram and colleagues found that patients in the real-world setting demonstrated worse overall survival for six of the seven regimens evaluated (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; P = .010). 

The real-world patients also had worse progression-free survival for six of the seven regimens (pooled HR, 1.44; P = .034). 

For these regimens, progression-free survival was at least 3-18 months longer in the clinical trial cohort, while median overall survival was at least 19 months longer compared with real-world patients, Dr. Visram explained. 

The only regimen with comparable outcomes in the clinical trial and real-world settings was pomalidomide and dexamethasone, she said. One reason could be that patients receiving pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in the clinical trial setting had similar or more advanced disease than those in the real-world setting.

The study also found that adverse effects were similar between the clinical and real-world groups. 

The next step, Dr. Visram said, would be to explore what’s driving the differences in outcomes. 

Are patients in the real-world setting older or frailer? Do they have more advanced disease? Are providers using these regimens differently? 

Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, explained that the difference likely comes down to the health of the patient. 

Patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated,” Dr. Sekeres, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, Florida, said in an earlier ASH press briefing.

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, noted that patients in clinical trials have other advantages as well.

“Patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects,” said Dr. Dunbar, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH. These patients also “might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them on how to make it through a toxicity.”

Dr. Dunbar said hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly.” 

No study funding was reported. Dr. Visram reported consulting and honoraria relationships with Apotex, Janssen, and Sanofi. Other study authors reported multiple relationships with industry. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar and Dr. Sekeres were unavailable. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the real world, outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma who received standard regimens were dramatically worse than those reported in clinical trials, a new study found. 

The analysis, which included nearly 4,000 patients with multiple myeloma, revealed that patients in a real-world setting demonstrated worse progression-free and overall survival on six of seven standard treatments compared with patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Lead author Alissa Visram, MD, MPH, who spoke about the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, said the findings will likely change the way she speaks to patients about their potential outcomes. 

“I’ll probably present both numbers [from real-life and clinical-trial data] and give them a sense of the best-case scenario,” Dr. Visram said during an ASH media briefing. But she said she will also caution her patients that the real-world numbers reflect how people on these drugs actually fare. 

The effectiveness of multiple myeloma drugs remains unclear outside the clinical trial setting, explained Dr. Visram, of the Division of Hematology at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Outcomes from randomized controlled trials form the basis of drug approvals but many patients in the real world do not meet the “stringent” trial inclusion criteria. 

Dr. Visram and colleagues launched the current study to better understand the potential differences between real-world and clinical trial outcomes. In the analysis, the researchers compared real-world outcomes among patients receiving seven standard multiple myeloma regimens covered by Ontario’s public health plan with patient outcomes reported in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. 

The retrospective study included 3951 patients with newly diagnosed and refractory multiple myeloma treated from 2007 to 2020 in Ontario. Regimens for newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients included lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and triple therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Regimens for patients with relapsed disease included pomalidomide plus dexamethasone or carfilzomib plus dexamethasone as well as triple combinations including carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Overall, Dr. Visram and colleagues found that patients in the real-world setting demonstrated worse overall survival for six of the seven regimens evaluated (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; P = .010). 

The real-world patients also had worse progression-free survival for six of the seven regimens (pooled HR, 1.44; P = .034). 

For these regimens, progression-free survival was at least 3-18 months longer in the clinical trial cohort, while median overall survival was at least 19 months longer compared with real-world patients, Dr. Visram explained. 

The only regimen with comparable outcomes in the clinical trial and real-world settings was pomalidomide and dexamethasone, she said. One reason could be that patients receiving pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in the clinical trial setting had similar or more advanced disease than those in the real-world setting.

The study also found that adverse effects were similar between the clinical and real-world groups. 

The next step, Dr. Visram said, would be to explore what’s driving the differences in outcomes. 

Are patients in the real-world setting older or frailer? Do they have more advanced disease? Are providers using these regimens differently? 

Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, explained that the difference likely comes down to the health of the patient. 

Patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated,” Dr. Sekeres, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, Florida, said in an earlier ASH press briefing.

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, noted that patients in clinical trials have other advantages as well.

“Patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects,” said Dr. Dunbar, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH. These patients also “might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them on how to make it through a toxicity.”

Dr. Dunbar said hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly.” 

No study funding was reported. Dr. Visram reported consulting and honoraria relationships with Apotex, Janssen, and Sanofi. Other study authors reported multiple relationships with industry. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar and Dr. Sekeres were unavailable. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the real world, outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma who received standard regimens were dramatically worse than those reported in clinical trials, a new study found. 

The analysis, which included nearly 4,000 patients with multiple myeloma, revealed that patients in a real-world setting demonstrated worse progression-free and overall survival on six of seven standard treatments compared with patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Lead author Alissa Visram, MD, MPH, who spoke about the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, said the findings will likely change the way she speaks to patients about their potential outcomes. 

“I’ll probably present both numbers [from real-life and clinical-trial data] and give them a sense of the best-case scenario,” Dr. Visram said during an ASH media briefing. But she said she will also caution her patients that the real-world numbers reflect how people on these drugs actually fare. 

The effectiveness of multiple myeloma drugs remains unclear outside the clinical trial setting, explained Dr. Visram, of the Division of Hematology at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Outcomes from randomized controlled trials form the basis of drug approvals but many patients in the real world do not meet the “stringent” trial inclusion criteria. 

Dr. Visram and colleagues launched the current study to better understand the potential differences between real-world and clinical trial outcomes. In the analysis, the researchers compared real-world outcomes among patients receiving seven standard multiple myeloma regimens covered by Ontario’s public health plan with patient outcomes reported in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. 

The retrospective study included 3951 patients with newly diagnosed and refractory multiple myeloma treated from 2007 to 2020 in Ontario. Regimens for newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients included lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and triple therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Regimens for patients with relapsed disease included pomalidomide plus dexamethasone or carfilzomib plus dexamethasone as well as triple combinations including carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Overall, Dr. Visram and colleagues found that patients in the real-world setting demonstrated worse overall survival for six of the seven regimens evaluated (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; P = .010). 

The real-world patients also had worse progression-free survival for six of the seven regimens (pooled HR, 1.44; P = .034). 

For these regimens, progression-free survival was at least 3-18 months longer in the clinical trial cohort, while median overall survival was at least 19 months longer compared with real-world patients, Dr. Visram explained. 

The only regimen with comparable outcomes in the clinical trial and real-world settings was pomalidomide and dexamethasone, she said. One reason could be that patients receiving pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in the clinical trial setting had similar or more advanced disease than those in the real-world setting.

The study also found that adverse effects were similar between the clinical and real-world groups. 

The next step, Dr. Visram said, would be to explore what’s driving the differences in outcomes. 

Are patients in the real-world setting older or frailer? Do they have more advanced disease? Are providers using these regimens differently? 

Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, explained that the difference likely comes down to the health of the patient. 

Patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated,” Dr. Sekeres, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, Florida, said in an earlier ASH press briefing.

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, noted that patients in clinical trials have other advantages as well.

“Patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects,” said Dr. Dunbar, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH. These patients also “might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them on how to make it through a toxicity.”

Dr. Dunbar said hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly.” 

No study funding was reported. Dr. Visram reported consulting and honoraria relationships with Apotex, Janssen, and Sanofi. Other study authors reported multiple relationships with industry. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar and Dr. Sekeres were unavailable. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.