Neurology Reviews

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Among people with MS who have mild symptoms, non-motor symptoms like dizziness, fatigue, and spasticity predict later perception of balance, walking, and physical quality of life. However, these associations fall away among patients with more severe disease, according to a new study performed in Australia. The findings could eventually help tailor physical activity interventions.

The research grew out of frustrations with developing interventions focused on strength. “There are many systematic reviews showing stronger and stronger evidence that exercise is beneficial. It does change your walking. It does improve your balance,” said Katrina Williams, PhD, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

However, when her group’s intervention studies yielded no statistically significant improvements, she began to search for explanations, and began to suspect heterogeneity among MS patients. Their clinic took all comers, regardless of disability level. “[Our attitude was] we will make it work. We’ll get you actively moving and exercising. But when you break down a lot of those systematic reviews, there’s not a lot of teasing out of disability levels. So, potentially, it is the disability level that might be leading to why some people don’t change or why we’re not getting the statistically significant benefits, because we’re not addressing the individual at their level of disease progression,” said Dr. Williams, who is a senior lecturer in physiotherapy at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

“Physiotherapists, we love exercise, we love movement, but we’re a bit unidimensional. It’s some strength training, [or] let’s get on that bike and do cardiovascular. But that may not be enough for individuals who have different symptoms profiles. We’re assuming that the motor profile is the most important, and the one that needs to be addressed in these individuals,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Focusing on Non-Motor Symptoms

When she searched the literature, she could find little evidence of non-motor symptoms correlating to walking, balance, or even quality of life. To dig deeper, her group studied 220 MS patients in Australia who self-reported symptoms of dizziness, vision problems, fatigue, and spasticity. The population had a mean age of 42 years, and 82% were female. They ranged in disease severity from disease step (DS) 0 to DS 6. The researchers categorized respondents as between DS 0 (mild symptoms that were mostly sensory) to DS 3 (MS interferes with walking) and from DS 4 (early cane use) to DS 6 (requiring bilateral walking support).

Deficits were more commonly reported in the DS 4-6 group than the DS 0-3 group with respect to light touch (88% vs 72%), proprioception (63% vs 41%), fatigue (100% vs 96%), and spasticity (78% vs 69%). There were no significant differences in dizziness, vision, or memory/cognition/emotion.

A linear regression model incorporating sensory worsening, age, social participation, perceived deficit, and spasticity showed an R² adjusted value of 0.73. However, when they looked only at DS 0-3 patients, the R² value strengthened to 0.86. Among the DS 4-6 group, the correlation largely disappeared with an R² value of 0.16. Specifically, there were stronger associations in the DS 0-3 group than the overall group (DS 0-6) between perceived walking deficit and sensory worsening (R² 0.45 vs 0.31), fatigue (0.67 vs 0.05), spasticity (0.47 vs 0.16), and balance (0.8 vs 0.16).

“Most non-motor symptoms do have moderate to weak correlations to walking confidence and walking balance, and quality of life, and the correlations do decline as disability worsens. Those with less disability had more correlations that were stronger, particularly for the walking and balance confidence. So [among those] walking without an aid, there are more non-motor correlations aligned to the actual outcomes. In more disabled, they fell away, so there’s something else going on that we do have to look at,” said Dr. Williams.

She called for other clinicians to explore non-motor symptoms in patients with less disability, and the relationships of those symptoms to gait, balance, and overall MS impact, in the hopes that such observations could improve the tailoring of physiotherapy programs.
 

Perception May Differ From Actual Function

During the Q&A session, Nora Fritz, PhD, an associate professor of neurology at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, asked about the lack of correlations seen in more disabled patients. “It’s not exactly what you would expect to happen,” said Dr. Fritz, in an interview.

She asked Dr. Williams if the study had sufficient power to detect associations in patients with more severe disability, since the study had a relatively small sample size and many predictors in its regression model. Dr. Fritz also noted that perceptions may differ from actual function, so actual function can’t be captured using a survey. Dr. Williams responded that the group is now working to incorporate more clinical measures to their correlations.

Another audience member said she was “perplexed” by the drop-off of correlation in the most severe group. She suggested the possibility that as patients become more disabled, they may be less likely to perceive the relatively less severe non-motor symptoms and therefore did not report them.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Fritz have no relevant financial disclosures.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Among people with MS who have mild symptoms, non-motor symptoms like dizziness, fatigue, and spasticity predict later perception of balance, walking, and physical quality of life. However, these associations fall away among patients with more severe disease, according to a new study performed in Australia. The findings could eventually help tailor physical activity interventions.

The research grew out of frustrations with developing interventions focused on strength. “There are many systematic reviews showing stronger and stronger evidence that exercise is beneficial. It does change your walking. It does improve your balance,” said Katrina Williams, PhD, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

However, when her group’s intervention studies yielded no statistically significant improvements, she began to search for explanations, and began to suspect heterogeneity among MS patients. Their clinic took all comers, regardless of disability level. “[Our attitude was] we will make it work. We’ll get you actively moving and exercising. But when you break down a lot of those systematic reviews, there’s not a lot of teasing out of disability levels. So, potentially, it is the disability level that might be leading to why some people don’t change or why we’re not getting the statistically significant benefits, because we’re not addressing the individual at their level of disease progression,” said Dr. Williams, who is a senior lecturer in physiotherapy at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

“Physiotherapists, we love exercise, we love movement, but we’re a bit unidimensional. It’s some strength training, [or] let’s get on that bike and do cardiovascular. But that may not be enough for individuals who have different symptoms profiles. We’re assuming that the motor profile is the most important, and the one that needs to be addressed in these individuals,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Focusing on Non-Motor Symptoms

When she searched the literature, she could find little evidence of non-motor symptoms correlating to walking, balance, or even quality of life. To dig deeper, her group studied 220 MS patients in Australia who self-reported symptoms of dizziness, vision problems, fatigue, and spasticity. The population had a mean age of 42 years, and 82% were female. They ranged in disease severity from disease step (DS) 0 to DS 6. The researchers categorized respondents as between DS 0 (mild symptoms that were mostly sensory) to DS 3 (MS interferes with walking) and from DS 4 (early cane use) to DS 6 (requiring bilateral walking support).

Deficits were more commonly reported in the DS 4-6 group than the DS 0-3 group with respect to light touch (88% vs 72%), proprioception (63% vs 41%), fatigue (100% vs 96%), and spasticity (78% vs 69%). There were no significant differences in dizziness, vision, or memory/cognition/emotion.

A linear regression model incorporating sensory worsening, age, social participation, perceived deficit, and spasticity showed an R² adjusted value of 0.73. However, when they looked only at DS 0-3 patients, the R² value strengthened to 0.86. Among the DS 4-6 group, the correlation largely disappeared with an R² value of 0.16. Specifically, there were stronger associations in the DS 0-3 group than the overall group (DS 0-6) between perceived walking deficit and sensory worsening (R² 0.45 vs 0.31), fatigue (0.67 vs 0.05), spasticity (0.47 vs 0.16), and balance (0.8 vs 0.16).

“Most non-motor symptoms do have moderate to weak correlations to walking confidence and walking balance, and quality of life, and the correlations do decline as disability worsens. Those with less disability had more correlations that were stronger, particularly for the walking and balance confidence. So [among those] walking without an aid, there are more non-motor correlations aligned to the actual outcomes. In more disabled, they fell away, so there’s something else going on that we do have to look at,” said Dr. Williams.

She called for other clinicians to explore non-motor symptoms in patients with less disability, and the relationships of those symptoms to gait, balance, and overall MS impact, in the hopes that such observations could improve the tailoring of physiotherapy programs.
 

Perception May Differ From Actual Function

During the Q&A session, Nora Fritz, PhD, an associate professor of neurology at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, asked about the lack of correlations seen in more disabled patients. “It’s not exactly what you would expect to happen,” said Dr. Fritz, in an interview.

She asked Dr. Williams if the study had sufficient power to detect associations in patients with more severe disability, since the study had a relatively small sample size and many predictors in its regression model. Dr. Fritz also noted that perceptions may differ from actual function, so actual function can’t be captured using a survey. Dr. Williams responded that the group is now working to incorporate more clinical measures to their correlations.

Another audience member said she was “perplexed” by the drop-off of correlation in the most severe group. She suggested the possibility that as patients become more disabled, they may be less likely to perceive the relatively less severe non-motor symptoms and therefore did not report them.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Fritz have no relevant financial disclosures.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Among people with MS who have mild symptoms, non-motor symptoms like dizziness, fatigue, and spasticity predict later perception of balance, walking, and physical quality of life. However, these associations fall away among patients with more severe disease, according to a new study performed in Australia. The findings could eventually help tailor physical activity interventions.

The research grew out of frustrations with developing interventions focused on strength. “There are many systematic reviews showing stronger and stronger evidence that exercise is beneficial. It does change your walking. It does improve your balance,” said Katrina Williams, PhD, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

However, when her group’s intervention studies yielded no statistically significant improvements, she began to search for explanations, and began to suspect heterogeneity among MS patients. Their clinic took all comers, regardless of disability level. “[Our attitude was] we will make it work. We’ll get you actively moving and exercising. But when you break down a lot of those systematic reviews, there’s not a lot of teasing out of disability levels. So, potentially, it is the disability level that might be leading to why some people don’t change or why we’re not getting the statistically significant benefits, because we’re not addressing the individual at their level of disease progression,” said Dr. Williams, who is a senior lecturer in physiotherapy at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

“Physiotherapists, we love exercise, we love movement, but we’re a bit unidimensional. It’s some strength training, [or] let’s get on that bike and do cardiovascular. But that may not be enough for individuals who have different symptoms profiles. We’re assuming that the motor profile is the most important, and the one that needs to be addressed in these individuals,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Focusing on Non-Motor Symptoms

When she searched the literature, she could find little evidence of non-motor symptoms correlating to walking, balance, or even quality of life. To dig deeper, her group studied 220 MS patients in Australia who self-reported symptoms of dizziness, vision problems, fatigue, and spasticity. The population had a mean age of 42 years, and 82% were female. They ranged in disease severity from disease step (DS) 0 to DS 6. The researchers categorized respondents as between DS 0 (mild symptoms that were mostly sensory) to DS 3 (MS interferes with walking) and from DS 4 (early cane use) to DS 6 (requiring bilateral walking support).

Deficits were more commonly reported in the DS 4-6 group than the DS 0-3 group with respect to light touch (88% vs 72%), proprioception (63% vs 41%), fatigue (100% vs 96%), and spasticity (78% vs 69%). There were no significant differences in dizziness, vision, or memory/cognition/emotion.

A linear regression model incorporating sensory worsening, age, social participation, perceived deficit, and spasticity showed an R² adjusted value of 0.73. However, when they looked only at DS 0-3 patients, the R² value strengthened to 0.86. Among the DS 4-6 group, the correlation largely disappeared with an R² value of 0.16. Specifically, there were stronger associations in the DS 0-3 group than the overall group (DS 0-6) between perceived walking deficit and sensory worsening (R² 0.45 vs 0.31), fatigue (0.67 vs 0.05), spasticity (0.47 vs 0.16), and balance (0.8 vs 0.16).

“Most non-motor symptoms do have moderate to weak correlations to walking confidence and walking balance, and quality of life, and the correlations do decline as disability worsens. Those with less disability had more correlations that were stronger, particularly for the walking and balance confidence. So [among those] walking without an aid, there are more non-motor correlations aligned to the actual outcomes. In more disabled, they fell away, so there’s something else going on that we do have to look at,” said Dr. Williams.

She called for other clinicians to explore non-motor symptoms in patients with less disability, and the relationships of those symptoms to gait, balance, and overall MS impact, in the hopes that such observations could improve the tailoring of physiotherapy programs.
 

Perception May Differ From Actual Function

During the Q&A session, Nora Fritz, PhD, an associate professor of neurology at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, asked about the lack of correlations seen in more disabled patients. “It’s not exactly what you would expect to happen,” said Dr. Fritz, in an interview.

She asked Dr. Williams if the study had sufficient power to detect associations in patients with more severe disability, since the study had a relatively small sample size and many predictors in its regression model. Dr. Fritz also noted that perceptions may differ from actual function, so actual function can’t be captured using a survey. Dr. Williams responded that the group is now working to incorporate more clinical measures to their correlations.

Another audience member said she was “perplexed” by the drop-off of correlation in the most severe group. She suggested the possibility that as patients become more disabled, they may be less likely to perceive the relatively less severe non-motor symptoms and therefore did not report them.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Fritz have no relevant financial disclosures.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Stress in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) can have serious effects on quality of life, but there is some evidence that it could worsen inflammation through activation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, leading to more relapses.

A new intervention seeks to help patients with MS reduce stress using biofeedback, employing simple, readily available pulse oximeters and focusing on breathing and other simple coping skills.

Observational studies have suggested that stress may lead to relapses, according to Amy Sullivan, PsyD, who spoke during a session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

She cited a study conducted during the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006, which found more exacerbations among 156 Israeli patients with relapsing-remitting MS patients during the period of hostilities. There were 18 relapses that occurred during the war, and 44% of those who experienced a relapse reported experience intense subjective stress, versus 20% of those who did not experience a relapse, and 67% of relapsers reported high levels of distress linked to rocket attack exposure, versus 42% of those who did not have a relapse (P = .05).

Another study of 216 Lebanese MS patients found 23 relapses during the 2-month war period, compared with a mean of 8.4 during other 2-month periods.

“So we have two observational studies that are showing us that there’s a pretty strong link or correlation between war, a very stressful life event, and MS relapses,” said Dr. Sullivan.

That relationship has prompted development of interventions to reduce stress in MS patients in hopes of improving clinical outcomes. One that “shaped our practice,” according to Dr. Sullivan, was published in 2012. It was the first high-quality randomized controlled trial of such an intervention, she said.

The program was based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and lasted 24 weeks and 16 psychotherapy sessions. Compared with controls, participants had fewer MRI brain lesions, but there were no differences after week 24. “[That] tells us that when people stopped the stress management techniques, the intervention did not give them protection,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Her group aimed to build on that work by developing a program that would be easier for busy patients to learn and incorporate into their lives. “Being in a psychotherapist office for 24 weeks to me was not feasible. I didn’t think that this was something that individuals would have interest in,” said Dr. Sullivan.

They focused on skills to manage stress, delivered over four sessions and designed to be employed in their private life. “We want them to go into the world for 4 to 6 weeks to do the skills that we taught them in that particular session, and then they come back and they tell us how that worked. We also recognize that each skill is not going to work. It’s not a one-size-fits-all for each person,” said Dr. Sullivan.

In addition to patient self-reports, the team measured physiological indicators of stress like pulse (beats per minute), breath rate (breaths per minute), and saturated oxygen (%SpO2). The measures were taken before and after stress management exercises.

The first session included psychoeducation and diaphragmatic breathing for relaxation. The second reviewed the nervous system and the stress response. The third introduced visualization and guided imagery that was individualized for each patient. The fourth focused on mindfulness and distress tolerance.

The study included 195 individuals (mean age, 44.4 years; 72.0% female, 71.5% White).

In all four sessions, patients achieved significant in-session improvements in breath rate, pulse, and saturated oxygen, as well as improvements from the first to the final session: Among 124 patients who completed at least 2 sessions, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores improved by 1.61 (P < .001), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) scores by 1.08 (P = .004), breaths per minute by 3.38 (P = .001), and SpO2 by 1.67 (P = .016). There was no significant change in pulse.

The high dropout rate could be seen as a weakness, but it was actually designed into the program. “We encouraged people to drop out when they were done. Our program is built on feasibility, and it’s built based on wanting our patients to get what they need out of our treatment, and then go live their lives. We don’t want them to feel tied to our offices, so they voluntarily discontinued after they felt they had sufficiently mastered stress management skills,” said Dr. Sullivan.

The results “suggest that short-term treatment with stress management skills can impact physiological and emotional stress in MS. [The] stress management protocol is likely a great adjunctive treatment to bolster skills traditionally taught during psychotherapy sessions,” said Dr. Sullivan.

During the Q&A period, an audience member asked why the group deviated from traditional cognitive behavioral therapy and moved into more right-brain activities. “In our practice, we’re very eclectic. We don’t believe that just CBT helps, or just behavioral therapy helps, or just [dialectical behavior therapy] helps. We want to teach the skills which we believe are the most important skills to train people on,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Sullivan did not report any relevant disclosures.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Stress in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) can have serious effects on quality of life, but there is some evidence that it could worsen inflammation through activation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, leading to more relapses.

A new intervention seeks to help patients with MS reduce stress using biofeedback, employing simple, readily available pulse oximeters and focusing on breathing and other simple coping skills.

Observational studies have suggested that stress may lead to relapses, according to Amy Sullivan, PsyD, who spoke during a session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

She cited a study conducted during the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006, which found more exacerbations among 156 Israeli patients with relapsing-remitting MS patients during the period of hostilities. There were 18 relapses that occurred during the war, and 44% of those who experienced a relapse reported experience intense subjective stress, versus 20% of those who did not experience a relapse, and 67% of relapsers reported high levels of distress linked to rocket attack exposure, versus 42% of those who did not have a relapse (P = .05).

Another study of 216 Lebanese MS patients found 23 relapses during the 2-month war period, compared with a mean of 8.4 during other 2-month periods.

“So we have two observational studies that are showing us that there’s a pretty strong link or correlation between war, a very stressful life event, and MS relapses,” said Dr. Sullivan.

That relationship has prompted development of interventions to reduce stress in MS patients in hopes of improving clinical outcomes. One that “shaped our practice,” according to Dr. Sullivan, was published in 2012. It was the first high-quality randomized controlled trial of such an intervention, she said.

The program was based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and lasted 24 weeks and 16 psychotherapy sessions. Compared with controls, participants had fewer MRI brain lesions, but there were no differences after week 24. “[That] tells us that when people stopped the stress management techniques, the intervention did not give them protection,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Her group aimed to build on that work by developing a program that would be easier for busy patients to learn and incorporate into their lives. “Being in a psychotherapist office for 24 weeks to me was not feasible. I didn’t think that this was something that individuals would have interest in,” said Dr. Sullivan.

They focused on skills to manage stress, delivered over four sessions and designed to be employed in their private life. “We want them to go into the world for 4 to 6 weeks to do the skills that we taught them in that particular session, and then they come back and they tell us how that worked. We also recognize that each skill is not going to work. It’s not a one-size-fits-all for each person,” said Dr. Sullivan.

In addition to patient self-reports, the team measured physiological indicators of stress like pulse (beats per minute), breath rate (breaths per minute), and saturated oxygen (%SpO2). The measures were taken before and after stress management exercises.

The first session included psychoeducation and diaphragmatic breathing for relaxation. The second reviewed the nervous system and the stress response. The third introduced visualization and guided imagery that was individualized for each patient. The fourth focused on mindfulness and distress tolerance.

The study included 195 individuals (mean age, 44.4 years; 72.0% female, 71.5% White).

In all four sessions, patients achieved significant in-session improvements in breath rate, pulse, and saturated oxygen, as well as improvements from the first to the final session: Among 124 patients who completed at least 2 sessions, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores improved by 1.61 (P < .001), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) scores by 1.08 (P = .004), breaths per minute by 3.38 (P = .001), and SpO2 by 1.67 (P = .016). There was no significant change in pulse.

The high dropout rate could be seen as a weakness, but it was actually designed into the program. “We encouraged people to drop out when they were done. Our program is built on feasibility, and it’s built based on wanting our patients to get what they need out of our treatment, and then go live their lives. We don’t want them to feel tied to our offices, so they voluntarily discontinued after they felt they had sufficiently mastered stress management skills,” said Dr. Sullivan.

The results “suggest that short-term treatment with stress management skills can impact physiological and emotional stress in MS. [The] stress management protocol is likely a great adjunctive treatment to bolster skills traditionally taught during psychotherapy sessions,” said Dr. Sullivan.

During the Q&A period, an audience member asked why the group deviated from traditional cognitive behavioral therapy and moved into more right-brain activities. “In our practice, we’re very eclectic. We don’t believe that just CBT helps, or just behavioral therapy helps, or just [dialectical behavior therapy] helps. We want to teach the skills which we believe are the most important skills to train people on,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Sullivan did not report any relevant disclosures.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Stress in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) can have serious effects on quality of life, but there is some evidence that it could worsen inflammation through activation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, leading to more relapses.

A new intervention seeks to help patients with MS reduce stress using biofeedback, employing simple, readily available pulse oximeters and focusing on breathing and other simple coping skills.

Observational studies have suggested that stress may lead to relapses, according to Amy Sullivan, PsyD, who spoke during a session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

She cited a study conducted during the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006, which found more exacerbations among 156 Israeli patients with relapsing-remitting MS patients during the period of hostilities. There were 18 relapses that occurred during the war, and 44% of those who experienced a relapse reported experience intense subjective stress, versus 20% of those who did not experience a relapse, and 67% of relapsers reported high levels of distress linked to rocket attack exposure, versus 42% of those who did not have a relapse (P = .05).

Another study of 216 Lebanese MS patients found 23 relapses during the 2-month war period, compared with a mean of 8.4 during other 2-month periods.

“So we have two observational studies that are showing us that there’s a pretty strong link or correlation between war, a very stressful life event, and MS relapses,” said Dr. Sullivan.

That relationship has prompted development of interventions to reduce stress in MS patients in hopes of improving clinical outcomes. One that “shaped our practice,” according to Dr. Sullivan, was published in 2012. It was the first high-quality randomized controlled trial of such an intervention, she said.

The program was based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and lasted 24 weeks and 16 psychotherapy sessions. Compared with controls, participants had fewer MRI brain lesions, but there were no differences after week 24. “[That] tells us that when people stopped the stress management techniques, the intervention did not give them protection,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Her group aimed to build on that work by developing a program that would be easier for busy patients to learn and incorporate into their lives. “Being in a psychotherapist office for 24 weeks to me was not feasible. I didn’t think that this was something that individuals would have interest in,” said Dr. Sullivan.

They focused on skills to manage stress, delivered over four sessions and designed to be employed in their private life. “We want them to go into the world for 4 to 6 weeks to do the skills that we taught them in that particular session, and then they come back and they tell us how that worked. We also recognize that each skill is not going to work. It’s not a one-size-fits-all for each person,” said Dr. Sullivan.

In addition to patient self-reports, the team measured physiological indicators of stress like pulse (beats per minute), breath rate (breaths per minute), and saturated oxygen (%SpO2). The measures were taken before and after stress management exercises.

The first session included psychoeducation and diaphragmatic breathing for relaxation. The second reviewed the nervous system and the stress response. The third introduced visualization and guided imagery that was individualized for each patient. The fourth focused on mindfulness and distress tolerance.

The study included 195 individuals (mean age, 44.4 years; 72.0% female, 71.5% White).

In all four sessions, patients achieved significant in-session improvements in breath rate, pulse, and saturated oxygen, as well as improvements from the first to the final session: Among 124 patients who completed at least 2 sessions, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores improved by 1.61 (P < .001), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) scores by 1.08 (P = .004), breaths per minute by 3.38 (P = .001), and SpO2 by 1.67 (P = .016). There was no significant change in pulse.

The high dropout rate could be seen as a weakness, but it was actually designed into the program. “We encouraged people to drop out when they were done. Our program is built on feasibility, and it’s built based on wanting our patients to get what they need out of our treatment, and then go live their lives. We don’t want them to feel tied to our offices, so they voluntarily discontinued after they felt they had sufficiently mastered stress management skills,” said Dr. Sullivan.

The results “suggest that short-term treatment with stress management skills can impact physiological and emotional stress in MS. [The] stress management protocol is likely a great adjunctive treatment to bolster skills traditionally taught during psychotherapy sessions,” said Dr. Sullivan.

During the Q&A period, an audience member asked why the group deviated from traditional cognitive behavioral therapy and moved into more right-brain activities. “In our practice, we’re very eclectic. We don’t believe that just CBT helps, or just behavioral therapy helps, or just [dialectical behavior therapy] helps. We want to teach the skills which we believe are the most important skills to train people on,” said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Sullivan did not report any relevant disclosures.

The envelope was a small one, with a handwritten address. Of course, there were other things in the mail to sort through: insurance payments, bills, correspondence. So I attended to those while I made coffee and started my computer.

After a few minutes I came back to the small envelope.

Inside was a card from a recently widowed lady, thanking me for my care of her husband and telling me I was very kind.

I’d only seem him once, about a year ago, and then had a follow-up phone call to go over the results.

In medicine you develop, as I’ve previously written, “Spidey Sense.” Things alert you that something bad is going on, even when you can’t quite put your finger on it yet. His story set off several of my alarms, and I sent him off for tests.

A few days later the electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) specialist I’d referred him to called to confirm the gentleman had ALS. He’d given him the diagnosis and started him on riluzole.

I called the patient and his wife that night to discuss things in more detail. My colleague, since neuromuscular disease is his field, had already started the process (this isn’t patient poaching, he and I have worked together long enough that he knows I’d rather he take over the case). I explained things further. They didn’t have any questions.

I didn’t hear from them again until the card came. On the flip side was a picture of them and their extended family. I have no idea how they vote, or what their religion is, or how much money they have. None of that matters.

They’re nice people, and a patient, who came to me for help. I was touched by her appreciation for the little I could do, and that she took time to express that to me.

None of us cures anyone in the long run. We can put off the inevitable, do our best to relieve suffering, and try to bring comfort — even when the last is all we can do.

Here in 2024, with all of our medications and computers and tests it’s hard to believe that we still come up short — very short – against so many diseases. Yet we do.

All of us can only do our best, even when the best we can do is to be kind.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The envelope was a small one, with a handwritten address. Of course, there were other things in the mail to sort through: insurance payments, bills, correspondence. So I attended to those while I made coffee and started my computer.

After a few minutes I came back to the small envelope.

Inside was a card from a recently widowed lady, thanking me for my care of her husband and telling me I was very kind.

I’d only seem him once, about a year ago, and then had a follow-up phone call to go over the results.

In medicine you develop, as I’ve previously written, “Spidey Sense.” Things alert you that something bad is going on, even when you can’t quite put your finger on it yet. His story set off several of my alarms, and I sent him off for tests.

A few days later the electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) specialist I’d referred him to called to confirm the gentleman had ALS. He’d given him the diagnosis and started him on riluzole.

I called the patient and his wife that night to discuss things in more detail. My colleague, since neuromuscular disease is his field, had already started the process (this isn’t patient poaching, he and I have worked together long enough that he knows I’d rather he take over the case). I explained things further. They didn’t have any questions.

I didn’t hear from them again until the card came. On the flip side was a picture of them and their extended family. I have no idea how they vote, or what their religion is, or how much money they have. None of that matters.

They’re nice people, and a patient, who came to me for help. I was touched by her appreciation for the little I could do, and that she took time to express that to me.

None of us cures anyone in the long run. We can put off the inevitable, do our best to relieve suffering, and try to bring comfort — even when the last is all we can do.

Here in 2024, with all of our medications and computers and tests it’s hard to believe that we still come up short — very short – against so many diseases. Yet we do.

All of us can only do our best, even when the best we can do is to be kind.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The envelope was a small one, with a handwritten address. Of course, there were other things in the mail to sort through: insurance payments, bills, correspondence. So I attended to those while I made coffee and started my computer.

After a few minutes I came back to the small envelope.

Inside was a card from a recently widowed lady, thanking me for my care of her husband and telling me I was very kind.

I’d only seem him once, about a year ago, and then had a follow-up phone call to go over the results.

In medicine you develop, as I’ve previously written, “Spidey Sense.” Things alert you that something bad is going on, even when you can’t quite put your finger on it yet. His story set off several of my alarms, and I sent him off for tests.

A few days later the electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) specialist I’d referred him to called to confirm the gentleman had ALS. He’d given him the diagnosis and started him on riluzole.

I called the patient and his wife that night to discuss things in more detail. My colleague, since neuromuscular disease is his field, had already started the process (this isn’t patient poaching, he and I have worked together long enough that he knows I’d rather he take over the case). I explained things further. They didn’t have any questions.

I didn’t hear from them again until the card came. On the flip side was a picture of them and their extended family. I have no idea how they vote, or what their religion is, or how much money they have. None of that matters.

They’re nice people, and a patient, who came to me for help. I was touched by her appreciation for the little I could do, and that she took time to express that to me.

None of us cures anyone in the long run. We can put off the inevitable, do our best to relieve suffering, and try to bring comfort — even when the last is all we can do.

Here in 2024, with all of our medications and computers and tests it’s hard to believe that we still come up short — very short – against so many diseases. Yet we do.

All of us can only do our best, even when the best we can do is to be kind.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A blood test that measures lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has received breakthrough device designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay, developed by Roche in partnership with Amgen, is designed to identify adults with elevated Lp(a) levels who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies currently in development. 

Lp(a) is a type of lipoprotein that is genetically inherited. Elevated levels have been associated with an increased risk for heart disease, stroke, and other blood vessel diseases.

Worldwide, about 1 in 5 people have high Lp(a) levels that are not significantly affected by lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise. Elevated Lp(a) is particularly prevalent among women and people of African descent.

Lp(a) testing is “an important tool for clinicians, enabling them to make a more accurate assessment of [cardiovascular] risk, and it is expected to become a part of regular diagnostic testing in the coming years,” Roche said in a news release announcing the breakthrough designation for the Lp(a) blood test. 

If approved, the Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay will be available on select Roche cobas platforms, the company reported.

Although low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles are much more abundant than Lp(a) particles and carry the greatest overall risk for heart disease, on a per-particle basis, atherogenic risk associated with Lp(a) is about six times higher than that associated with LDL cholesterol, a recent study showed.

There currently are no approved pharmacologic therapies to lower Lp(a) levels in the United States, but several hopefuls are in development. 

One is zerlasiran (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “gene silencing” therapy, which binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene, which encodes for apolipoprotein A, a dominant and rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

Treatment with zerlasiran produced significant and sustained reductions in Lp(a) concentrations in adults with elevated Lp(a) in the phase 1 APOLLO trial and the phase 2 ALPACAR-360 trial.

Other siRNA agents in development to lower Lp(a) levels include pelacarsen, lepodisiran, olpasiran, and muvalaplin.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood test that measures lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has received breakthrough device designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay, developed by Roche in partnership with Amgen, is designed to identify adults with elevated Lp(a) levels who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies currently in development. 

Lp(a) is a type of lipoprotein that is genetically inherited. Elevated levels have been associated with an increased risk for heart disease, stroke, and other blood vessel diseases.

Worldwide, about 1 in 5 people have high Lp(a) levels that are not significantly affected by lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise. Elevated Lp(a) is particularly prevalent among women and people of African descent.

Lp(a) testing is “an important tool for clinicians, enabling them to make a more accurate assessment of [cardiovascular] risk, and it is expected to become a part of regular diagnostic testing in the coming years,” Roche said in a news release announcing the breakthrough designation for the Lp(a) blood test. 

If approved, the Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay will be available on select Roche cobas platforms, the company reported.

Although low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles are much more abundant than Lp(a) particles and carry the greatest overall risk for heart disease, on a per-particle basis, atherogenic risk associated with Lp(a) is about six times higher than that associated with LDL cholesterol, a recent study showed.

There currently are no approved pharmacologic therapies to lower Lp(a) levels in the United States, but several hopefuls are in development. 

One is zerlasiran (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “gene silencing” therapy, which binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene, which encodes for apolipoprotein A, a dominant and rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

Treatment with zerlasiran produced significant and sustained reductions in Lp(a) concentrations in adults with elevated Lp(a) in the phase 1 APOLLO trial and the phase 2 ALPACAR-360 trial.

Other siRNA agents in development to lower Lp(a) levels include pelacarsen, lepodisiran, olpasiran, and muvalaplin.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood test that measures lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has received breakthrough device designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay, developed by Roche in partnership with Amgen, is designed to identify adults with elevated Lp(a) levels who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies currently in development. 

Lp(a) is a type of lipoprotein that is genetically inherited. Elevated levels have been associated with an increased risk for heart disease, stroke, and other blood vessel diseases.

Worldwide, about 1 in 5 people have high Lp(a) levels that are not significantly affected by lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise. Elevated Lp(a) is particularly prevalent among women and people of African descent.

Lp(a) testing is “an important tool for clinicians, enabling them to make a more accurate assessment of [cardiovascular] risk, and it is expected to become a part of regular diagnostic testing in the coming years,” Roche said in a news release announcing the breakthrough designation for the Lp(a) blood test. 

If approved, the Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay will be available on select Roche cobas platforms, the company reported.

Although low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles are much more abundant than Lp(a) particles and carry the greatest overall risk for heart disease, on a per-particle basis, atherogenic risk associated with Lp(a) is about six times higher than that associated with LDL cholesterol, a recent study showed.

There currently are no approved pharmacologic therapies to lower Lp(a) levels in the United States, but several hopefuls are in development. 

One is zerlasiran (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “gene silencing” therapy, which binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene, which encodes for apolipoprotein A, a dominant and rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

Treatment with zerlasiran produced significant and sustained reductions in Lp(a) concentrations in adults with elevated Lp(a) in the phase 1 APOLLO trial and the phase 2 ALPACAR-360 trial.

Other siRNA agents in development to lower Lp(a) levels include pelacarsen, lepodisiran, olpasiran, and muvalaplin.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Individuals with multiple sclerosis are living longer, healthier lives. More than half of patients with MS are 55 years or older, and the incidence of late-onset MS is rising.

This can lead to complex treatment decisions, according to Amy Perrin Ross, APN, MSN, CNRN, MSCN, who is the neuroscience program coordinator at Loyola Medical Center in Maywood, Illinois.

“Age was ranked as the second most important factor affecting treatment decisions in a recent survey of MS specialists,” said Ms. Ross, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. But there is little evidence to support treatment decisions, since there are few older patients enrolled in clinical trials. The average age is around 30-34 years.
 

MS in Older Patients

Aging is associated with immune system changes. There is a decline in inflammatory activity and an accompanying 17% reduction in the relapse rate with every 5 years of advancing age, and the majority of relapses occur within 30 years of onset. The bad news is that patients have reduced capacity to recover from relapses as they age.

“When I’m talking to patients about pros and cons [of treatment], I do mention that, yes, your relapse rate might be less, but as we age, we have less of an ability to completely recover,” said Ms. Ross.

The efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) goes down with advancing age. One meta-analyis of 38 randomized trials and 13 therapies found that benefit with respect to disease progression generally disappeared by the age of 53. “Age is an essential modifier of drug efficacy,” said Ms. Ross.

On the other hand, another meta-analysis found that success in treating relapses was similar across age groups. “So it seems that we can successfully treat our patients’ relapses: There was no significant association between age and reductions in annualized relapse rate,” she said, though she noted that clinical trial populations are likely to be dissimilar to aging patients, many of whom have gone years without experiencing a relapse.

Aging can also lead to differences in potential adverse effects of DMTs. Patients with MS experience faster immunosenescence, in which normal changes to the innate and adaptive immune system are accelerated. This can lead to greater risk of infection, and other adverse events can include post-administration reactions and changes to serum IgG levels.

Other conditions that should be monitored for include progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, and malignancies are more prevalent among people with MS than the general population, although it is unclear if this is due to the use of DMTs or other factors, or even just coincidence, said Ms. Ross. “Those are all things to keep in mind as we’re pushing forward with therapy for patients,” she said.

Comorbidities that occur with aging can also affect treatment outcomes, and could tip the balance against use of DMTs in some situations.
 

What Does the Literature Say?

There has been a range of retrospective studies looking at the results of discontinuation of DMTs with advancing age, and the results have been mixed. Some factors are associated with greater likelihood of disease reactivation, including younger age, female sex, shorter duration without a relapse, MRI activity, and degree of disability.

A study of a French registry including patients aged 50 years and older who went off DMTs found that 100% of patients who discontinued therapy were on older injectable DMTs, and 34.9% of that group restarted therapy over a mean follow-up of 7 years. The risk of relapse or disability progression was similar between the groups, but discontinuers who started with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores lower than 6.0 were more likely to reach an EDSS score of 6.0.

The DISCOMS study compared 259 patients randomized to continue DMTs versus discontinuation of DMTs. “What they found was that noninferiority was not shown. Disease activity, such as relapses and new lesions, [occurred in] 12% of the discontinuers and 5% of the continuers,” said Ms. Ross.

One option to balance risk and benefit is DMT de-escalation, with the aim to match disease therapy with disease activity over time. A 2023 survey of 224 neurologists to identify characteristics in older patients that would prompt de-escalation. The most common reasons were overall safety or comorbidity concerns (62% endorsed), high risk of infection (59%), low disease activity or stable disease (50%), concerns about efficacy (41%), high disability (37%), and patient choice (36%). About 7% reported that they generally do not de-escalate.

The preferred de-escalation therapies included glatiramer acetate (29%), fumarates (27%), teriflunomide (23%), and interferon betas (21%).

Ms. Ross noted that the study was likely conducted around the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. “So I wonder if some of these results might be a little bit different [than if it was conducted at a different time],” she said.
 

Other Concerns and Options

During the Q&A session, one audience member asked if physicians should consider low-efficacy medications in older patients with the idea that they at least get a little bit of protection.

Patricia Coyle, MD, who also presented during the session, framed her response around whether the patient had relapsing or progressive MS. “If somebody has had relapsing MS and has never transitioned to progressive MS, and they’re 70, maybe they don’t need to be on any DMT. If there’s no longer a focal inflammatory relapsing phase, if we could feel confident on that possibility, then maybe they don’t need to be on a relapsing DMT,” said Dr. Coyle, who is director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stony Brook University Medical Center in Stony Brook, New York.

Alternatively, if a patient has progressive MS, she said she would recommend discontinuing treatment if she believes the patient is being harmed by it, to focus instead on health and wellness.

Another questioner wondered what to do with a 70-year-old patient who has had no infections, has normal IgG, but insists on continuing high-efficacy B-cell therapy. Dr. Coyle responded that she would tell the patient that she believes it isn’t offering any benefit, but if the patient insisted, she would continue: “I’m not living with MS the way they are. If they tell me, ‘I believe it’s helping me and I want to stay on it,’ then so long as I don’t think I’m overtly harming them, I’m going to treat them.”

Ms. Ross agreed, and suggested that ceding to the patient’s will is an important consideration. “I think sometimes what we’re doing, if we’re not causing harm, what we’re doing is bolstering these people’s ability to continue to have hope, and that in my mind is a big part of managing their disease,” she said.

Ms. Ross has financial relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amgen/Horizon, ArgenX, Banner, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Roche, Sandoz, TG Therapeutics, UCB, and Viatris. Dr. Coyle has consulted for Accordant, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, LabCorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme. She has received research funding from Celgene, CorEvitas, Genentech/Roche, NINDS, and Sanofi Genzyme.
 

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Individuals with multiple sclerosis are living longer, healthier lives. More than half of patients with MS are 55 years or older, and the incidence of late-onset MS is rising.

This can lead to complex treatment decisions, according to Amy Perrin Ross, APN, MSN, CNRN, MSCN, who is the neuroscience program coordinator at Loyola Medical Center in Maywood, Illinois.

“Age was ranked as the second most important factor affecting treatment decisions in a recent survey of MS specialists,” said Ms. Ross, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. But there is little evidence to support treatment decisions, since there are few older patients enrolled in clinical trials. The average age is around 30-34 years.
 

MS in Older Patients

Aging is associated with immune system changes. There is a decline in inflammatory activity and an accompanying 17% reduction in the relapse rate with every 5 years of advancing age, and the majority of relapses occur within 30 years of onset. The bad news is that patients have reduced capacity to recover from relapses as they age.

“When I’m talking to patients about pros and cons [of treatment], I do mention that, yes, your relapse rate might be less, but as we age, we have less of an ability to completely recover,” said Ms. Ross.

The efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) goes down with advancing age. One meta-analyis of 38 randomized trials and 13 therapies found that benefit with respect to disease progression generally disappeared by the age of 53. “Age is an essential modifier of drug efficacy,” said Ms. Ross.

On the other hand, another meta-analysis found that success in treating relapses was similar across age groups. “So it seems that we can successfully treat our patients’ relapses: There was no significant association between age and reductions in annualized relapse rate,” she said, though she noted that clinical trial populations are likely to be dissimilar to aging patients, many of whom have gone years without experiencing a relapse.

Aging can also lead to differences in potential adverse effects of DMTs. Patients with MS experience faster immunosenescence, in which normal changes to the innate and adaptive immune system are accelerated. This can lead to greater risk of infection, and other adverse events can include post-administration reactions and changes to serum IgG levels.

Other conditions that should be monitored for include progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, and malignancies are more prevalent among people with MS than the general population, although it is unclear if this is due to the use of DMTs or other factors, or even just coincidence, said Ms. Ross. “Those are all things to keep in mind as we’re pushing forward with therapy for patients,” she said.

Comorbidities that occur with aging can also affect treatment outcomes, and could tip the balance against use of DMTs in some situations.
 

What Does the Literature Say?

There has been a range of retrospective studies looking at the results of discontinuation of DMTs with advancing age, and the results have been mixed. Some factors are associated with greater likelihood of disease reactivation, including younger age, female sex, shorter duration without a relapse, MRI activity, and degree of disability.

A study of a French registry including patients aged 50 years and older who went off DMTs found that 100% of patients who discontinued therapy were on older injectable DMTs, and 34.9% of that group restarted therapy over a mean follow-up of 7 years. The risk of relapse or disability progression was similar between the groups, but discontinuers who started with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores lower than 6.0 were more likely to reach an EDSS score of 6.0.

The DISCOMS study compared 259 patients randomized to continue DMTs versus discontinuation of DMTs. “What they found was that noninferiority was not shown. Disease activity, such as relapses and new lesions, [occurred in] 12% of the discontinuers and 5% of the continuers,” said Ms. Ross.

One option to balance risk and benefit is DMT de-escalation, with the aim to match disease therapy with disease activity over time. A 2023 survey of 224 neurologists to identify characteristics in older patients that would prompt de-escalation. The most common reasons were overall safety or comorbidity concerns (62% endorsed), high risk of infection (59%), low disease activity or stable disease (50%), concerns about efficacy (41%), high disability (37%), and patient choice (36%). About 7% reported that they generally do not de-escalate.

The preferred de-escalation therapies included glatiramer acetate (29%), fumarates (27%), teriflunomide (23%), and interferon betas (21%).

Ms. Ross noted that the study was likely conducted around the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. “So I wonder if some of these results might be a little bit different [than if it was conducted at a different time],” she said.
 

Other Concerns and Options

During the Q&A session, one audience member asked if physicians should consider low-efficacy medications in older patients with the idea that they at least get a little bit of protection.

Patricia Coyle, MD, who also presented during the session, framed her response around whether the patient had relapsing or progressive MS. “If somebody has had relapsing MS and has never transitioned to progressive MS, and they’re 70, maybe they don’t need to be on any DMT. If there’s no longer a focal inflammatory relapsing phase, if we could feel confident on that possibility, then maybe they don’t need to be on a relapsing DMT,” said Dr. Coyle, who is director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stony Brook University Medical Center in Stony Brook, New York.

Alternatively, if a patient has progressive MS, she said she would recommend discontinuing treatment if she believes the patient is being harmed by it, to focus instead on health and wellness.

Another questioner wondered what to do with a 70-year-old patient who has had no infections, has normal IgG, but insists on continuing high-efficacy B-cell therapy. Dr. Coyle responded that she would tell the patient that she believes it isn’t offering any benefit, but if the patient insisted, she would continue: “I’m not living with MS the way they are. If they tell me, ‘I believe it’s helping me and I want to stay on it,’ then so long as I don’t think I’m overtly harming them, I’m going to treat them.”

Ms. Ross agreed, and suggested that ceding to the patient’s will is an important consideration. “I think sometimes what we’re doing, if we’re not causing harm, what we’re doing is bolstering these people’s ability to continue to have hope, and that in my mind is a big part of managing their disease,” she said.

Ms. Ross has financial relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amgen/Horizon, ArgenX, Banner, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Roche, Sandoz, TG Therapeutics, UCB, and Viatris. Dr. Coyle has consulted for Accordant, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, LabCorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme. She has received research funding from Celgene, CorEvitas, Genentech/Roche, NINDS, and Sanofi Genzyme.
 

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Individuals with multiple sclerosis are living longer, healthier lives. More than half of patients with MS are 55 years or older, and the incidence of late-onset MS is rising.

This can lead to complex treatment decisions, according to Amy Perrin Ross, APN, MSN, CNRN, MSCN, who is the neuroscience program coordinator at Loyola Medical Center in Maywood, Illinois.

“Age was ranked as the second most important factor affecting treatment decisions in a recent survey of MS specialists,” said Ms. Ross, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. But there is little evidence to support treatment decisions, since there are few older patients enrolled in clinical trials. The average age is around 30-34 years.
 

MS in Older Patients

Aging is associated with immune system changes. There is a decline in inflammatory activity and an accompanying 17% reduction in the relapse rate with every 5 years of advancing age, and the majority of relapses occur within 30 years of onset. The bad news is that patients have reduced capacity to recover from relapses as they age.

“When I’m talking to patients about pros and cons [of treatment], I do mention that, yes, your relapse rate might be less, but as we age, we have less of an ability to completely recover,” said Ms. Ross.

The efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) goes down with advancing age. One meta-analyis of 38 randomized trials and 13 therapies found that benefit with respect to disease progression generally disappeared by the age of 53. “Age is an essential modifier of drug efficacy,” said Ms. Ross.

On the other hand, another meta-analysis found that success in treating relapses was similar across age groups. “So it seems that we can successfully treat our patients’ relapses: There was no significant association between age and reductions in annualized relapse rate,” she said, though she noted that clinical trial populations are likely to be dissimilar to aging patients, many of whom have gone years without experiencing a relapse.

Aging can also lead to differences in potential adverse effects of DMTs. Patients with MS experience faster immunosenescence, in which normal changes to the innate and adaptive immune system are accelerated. This can lead to greater risk of infection, and other adverse events can include post-administration reactions and changes to serum IgG levels.

Other conditions that should be monitored for include progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, and malignancies are more prevalent among people with MS than the general population, although it is unclear if this is due to the use of DMTs or other factors, or even just coincidence, said Ms. Ross. “Those are all things to keep in mind as we’re pushing forward with therapy for patients,” she said.

Comorbidities that occur with aging can also affect treatment outcomes, and could tip the balance against use of DMTs in some situations.
 

What Does the Literature Say?

There has been a range of retrospective studies looking at the results of discontinuation of DMTs with advancing age, and the results have been mixed. Some factors are associated with greater likelihood of disease reactivation, including younger age, female sex, shorter duration without a relapse, MRI activity, and degree of disability.

A study of a French registry including patients aged 50 years and older who went off DMTs found that 100% of patients who discontinued therapy were on older injectable DMTs, and 34.9% of that group restarted therapy over a mean follow-up of 7 years. The risk of relapse or disability progression was similar between the groups, but discontinuers who started with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores lower than 6.0 were more likely to reach an EDSS score of 6.0.

The DISCOMS study compared 259 patients randomized to continue DMTs versus discontinuation of DMTs. “What they found was that noninferiority was not shown. Disease activity, such as relapses and new lesions, [occurred in] 12% of the discontinuers and 5% of the continuers,” said Ms. Ross.

One option to balance risk and benefit is DMT de-escalation, with the aim to match disease therapy with disease activity over time. A 2023 survey of 224 neurologists to identify characteristics in older patients that would prompt de-escalation. The most common reasons were overall safety or comorbidity concerns (62% endorsed), high risk of infection (59%), low disease activity or stable disease (50%), concerns about efficacy (41%), high disability (37%), and patient choice (36%). About 7% reported that they generally do not de-escalate.

The preferred de-escalation therapies included glatiramer acetate (29%), fumarates (27%), teriflunomide (23%), and interferon betas (21%).

Ms. Ross noted that the study was likely conducted around the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. “So I wonder if some of these results might be a little bit different [than if it was conducted at a different time],” she said.
 

Other Concerns and Options

During the Q&A session, one audience member asked if physicians should consider low-efficacy medications in older patients with the idea that they at least get a little bit of protection.

Patricia Coyle, MD, who also presented during the session, framed her response around whether the patient had relapsing or progressive MS. “If somebody has had relapsing MS and has never transitioned to progressive MS, and they’re 70, maybe they don’t need to be on any DMT. If there’s no longer a focal inflammatory relapsing phase, if we could feel confident on that possibility, then maybe they don’t need to be on a relapsing DMT,” said Dr. Coyle, who is director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stony Brook University Medical Center in Stony Brook, New York.

Alternatively, if a patient has progressive MS, she said she would recommend discontinuing treatment if she believes the patient is being harmed by it, to focus instead on health and wellness.

Another questioner wondered what to do with a 70-year-old patient who has had no infections, has normal IgG, but insists on continuing high-efficacy B-cell therapy. Dr. Coyle responded that she would tell the patient that she believes it isn’t offering any benefit, but if the patient insisted, she would continue: “I’m not living with MS the way they are. If they tell me, ‘I believe it’s helping me and I want to stay on it,’ then so long as I don’t think I’m overtly harming them, I’m going to treat them.”

Ms. Ross agreed, and suggested that ceding to the patient’s will is an important consideration. “I think sometimes what we’re doing, if we’re not causing harm, what we’re doing is bolstering these people’s ability to continue to have hope, and that in my mind is a big part of managing their disease,” she said.

Ms. Ross has financial relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amgen/Horizon, ArgenX, Banner, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Roche, Sandoz, TG Therapeutics, UCB, and Viatris. Dr. Coyle has consulted for Accordant, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, LabCorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme. She has received research funding from Celgene, CorEvitas, Genentech/Roche, NINDS, and Sanofi Genzyme.
 

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.