In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

Primary care clinicians often struggle to care for their patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), thanks to a lack of real-world evidence as to which treatments work best.

As a result, potentially preventable life-threatening exacerbations are common among people with the condition. Central to the problem, some experts believe, is that the average patient bears little resemblance to participants in clinical trials of the medications used to treat COPD.

Indeed, a recent study showed that many COPD patients who were receiving maintenance therapy that should have been controlling their disease experienced severe flare-ups – a finding that caught the researchers by surprise.

“We know the benefit of COPD treatments in the context of clinical trials. However, the kinds of patients in primary care may not completely mimic those in clinical trials,” one of the authors, MeiLan Han, MD, a professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization. Dr. Han, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association, added that patients “may not be as adherent to medications in real life as they are in clinical trials.”

Randomized controlled trials that support regulatory drug approvals typically enroll patients who do not have comorbid conditions, who are younger than the average patient with COPD, and who typically are male. Patients are seen in resource-abundant settings designed to maximize adherence to treatment, with supports such as free medication and frequent monitoring – settings far different from those in which most primary care physicians practice.

The authors of the new article said trials conducted with typical patients in primary care settings could help physicians to optimize treatment.

Real-world evidence can shed light on physicians’ intent and on barriers to following guidelines, as well as important patient factors, such as adherence and good inhaler technique, Barbara Yawn, MD, an adjunct professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.
 

A window onto patient burden

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated $15 million Americans have COPD. Annual costs to the health care system approach $50 billion a year. The death rate for COPD has increased since 1969 as death rates of other major killers in the United States, such as heart disease and cancer, declined, according to a 2015 analysis of death records.

The new study, published in the July/August issue of the Annals of Family Medicine, provides a snapshot of COPD’s toll on patients.

Researchers examined electronic health records of 17,192 patients treated at primary care clinics in five states using a dataset maintained by DARTNet Institute, a nonprofit organization that supports research and quality improvement. They also analyzed self-reported assessments from 1,354 patients in the dataset who are in a registry called Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD.

Over half (56%) of patients were female, White (64%), aged 55-84 years (81%), and current or exsmokers (80%). The vast majority had three or more comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, and depression.

Serious flare-ups were common; 38% of patients had experienced one or more exacerbations in the previous year. Of registry respondents, half said they had had at least one exacerbation, and 20% said they had been hospitalized for COPD during that period.

Among patients in the registry, 43% reported that COPD had a high or very high impact on their health, and 45% could not walk at a normal pace without losing their breath.

Almost 90% of patients were receiving a maintenance therapy regimen. The number of exacerbations was “somewhat surprising,” the authors say. They write that the findings may indicate that patients were not receiving appropriate treatment or were not complying with their medication regimens and that there may be a need for nonpharmacologic interventions, such as smoking cessation. They also write that physician education is needed to support earlier diagnosis and treatment so as to delay declines in lung function.

The researchers say their findings highlight “the need for more real-life effectiveness trials to better support decision-making at the primary care level.”

Dr. Yawn is a coinvestigator of one such study, called CAPTURE, which is assessing a screening tool for COPD in primary care practices.

At the University of Illinois, Chicago, Jerry Krishnan, MD, PhD, pulmonologist and professor of medicine and public health, is running the RELIANCE study, which is comparing the use of azithromycin and roflumilast in preventing hospitalization and death among patients with COPD who continue to have exacerbations.

Although RELIANCE involves pulmonologists, Dr. Krishnan told this news organization, it offers a model for building real-world evidence on questions relevant to primary care. “We don’t really know if medications used by patients in my clinic are as effective as reported in clinical trials that were used to obtain regulatory approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” he said.

Wilson Pace, MD, a family physician and chief medical officer and chief technology officer of DARTNet, said funders of research are becoming aware of the need for real-world studies along with “gold standard” efficacy trials.

Dr. Pace, who helped conduct the new study, said a remaining obstacle to improving care is “a defeatist attitude of clinicians” who are skeptical about the ability of therapy to have an effect.

Real-world evidence could remedy clinician frustrations, he said. When clinicians are shown that they can improve patients’ quality of life and maybe even reduce the cost of care, “then they will hopefully pay attention,” he said.

Some experts who were not involved in the study said the findings offer an illuminating, although incomplete, picture. Nonpharmacologic interventions, the management of other health problems, and access to specialty care are not addressed, and the researchers didn’t have data on treatment adherence, inhaler technique, and patients’ peak inspiratory flow – factors that influence the effectiveness of medications. The study also lacked information on whether patients received pulmonary rehabilitation to help their heart and lungs work better.

Nicola Hanania, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Airways Clinical Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said the study “adds a lot to what we have known” but pointed out that COPD is grossly underdiagnosed.

According to one analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 72% of individuals with COPD don’t know they have the condition. Such patients were not included in the study, Dr. Hanania noted.

“We need pragmatic studies over multiple years to better understand” the condition, Dr. Yawn said. Real-world evidence “based in an academic setting or specialty practices is not sufficient,” she added. “We need to see results from patients and clinics that look like what we have.”

The registry was established and funded by Optimum Patient Care Global, a nonprofit organization, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Han has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca and has received research support from Novartis and Sunovion. Dr. Yawn has served on advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim and has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Krishnan has disclosed no relevant financial relationshps. Dr. Hanania has received honoraria for serving as consultant or advisory board member for GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Teva, Genentech, and Amgen. His institution has received research grant support on his behalf from GSK, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Teva, and Novartis. Dr. Pace is on the advisory board for Mylan and has received stock from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Stryker, Amgen, Gilead, and Sanofi.

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

Primary care clinicians often struggle to care for their patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), thanks to a lack of real-world evidence as to which treatments work best.

As a result, potentially preventable life-threatening exacerbations are common among people with the condition. Central to the problem, some experts believe, is that the average patient bears little resemblance to participants in clinical trials of the medications used to treat COPD.

Indeed, a recent study showed that many COPD patients who were receiving maintenance therapy that should have been controlling their disease experienced severe flare-ups – a finding that caught the researchers by surprise.

“We know the benefit of COPD treatments in the context of clinical trials. However, the kinds of patients in primary care may not completely mimic those in clinical trials,” one of the authors, MeiLan Han, MD, a professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization. Dr. Han, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association, added that patients “may not be as adherent to medications in real life as they are in clinical trials.”

Randomized controlled trials that support regulatory drug approvals typically enroll patients who do not have comorbid conditions, who are younger than the average patient with COPD, and who typically are male. Patients are seen in resource-abundant settings designed to maximize adherence to treatment, with supports such as free medication and frequent monitoring – settings far different from those in which most primary care physicians practice.

The authors of the new article said trials conducted with typical patients in primary care settings could help physicians to optimize treatment.

Real-world evidence can shed light on physicians’ intent and on barriers to following guidelines, as well as important patient factors, such as adherence and good inhaler technique, Barbara Yawn, MD, an adjunct professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.
 

A window onto patient burden

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated $15 million Americans have COPD. Annual costs to the health care system approach $50 billion a year. The death rate for COPD has increased since 1969 as death rates of other major killers in the United States, such as heart disease and cancer, declined, according to a 2015 analysis of death records.

The new study, published in the July/August issue of the Annals of Family Medicine, provides a snapshot of COPD’s toll on patients.

Researchers examined electronic health records of 17,192 patients treated at primary care clinics in five states using a dataset maintained by DARTNet Institute, a nonprofit organization that supports research and quality improvement. They also analyzed self-reported assessments from 1,354 patients in the dataset who are in a registry called Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD.

Over half (56%) of patients were female, White (64%), aged 55-84 years (81%), and current or exsmokers (80%). The vast majority had three or more comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, and depression.

Serious flare-ups were common; 38% of patients had experienced one or more exacerbations in the previous year. Of registry respondents, half said they had had at least one exacerbation, and 20% said they had been hospitalized for COPD during that period.

Among patients in the registry, 43% reported that COPD had a high or very high impact on their health, and 45% could not walk at a normal pace without losing their breath.

Almost 90% of patients were receiving a maintenance therapy regimen. The number of exacerbations was “somewhat surprising,” the authors say. They write that the findings may indicate that patients were not receiving appropriate treatment or were not complying with their medication regimens and that there may be a need for nonpharmacologic interventions, such as smoking cessation. They also write that physician education is needed to support earlier diagnosis and treatment so as to delay declines in lung function.

The researchers say their findings highlight “the need for more real-life effectiveness trials to better support decision-making at the primary care level.”

Dr. Yawn is a coinvestigator of one such study, called CAPTURE, which is assessing a screening tool for COPD in primary care practices.

At the University of Illinois, Chicago, Jerry Krishnan, MD, PhD, pulmonologist and professor of medicine and public health, is running the RELIANCE study, which is comparing the use of azithromycin and roflumilast in preventing hospitalization and death among patients with COPD who continue to have exacerbations.

Although RELIANCE involves pulmonologists, Dr. Krishnan told this news organization, it offers a model for building real-world evidence on questions relevant to primary care. “We don’t really know if medications used by patients in my clinic are as effective as reported in clinical trials that were used to obtain regulatory approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” he said.

Wilson Pace, MD, a family physician and chief medical officer and chief technology officer of DARTNet, said funders of research are becoming aware of the need for real-world studies along with “gold standard” efficacy trials.

Dr. Pace, who helped conduct the new study, said a remaining obstacle to improving care is “a defeatist attitude of clinicians” who are skeptical about the ability of therapy to have an effect.

Real-world evidence could remedy clinician frustrations, he said. When clinicians are shown that they can improve patients’ quality of life and maybe even reduce the cost of care, “then they will hopefully pay attention,” he said.

Some experts who were not involved in the study said the findings offer an illuminating, although incomplete, picture. Nonpharmacologic interventions, the management of other health problems, and access to specialty care are not addressed, and the researchers didn’t have data on treatment adherence, inhaler technique, and patients’ peak inspiratory flow – factors that influence the effectiveness of medications. The study also lacked information on whether patients received pulmonary rehabilitation to help their heart and lungs work better.

Nicola Hanania, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Airways Clinical Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said the study “adds a lot to what we have known” but pointed out that COPD is grossly underdiagnosed.

According to one analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 72% of individuals with COPD don’t know they have the condition. Such patients were not included in the study, Dr. Hanania noted.

“We need pragmatic studies over multiple years to better understand” the condition, Dr. Yawn said. Real-world evidence “based in an academic setting or specialty practices is not sufficient,” she added. “We need to see results from patients and clinics that look like what we have.”

The registry was established and funded by Optimum Patient Care Global, a nonprofit organization, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Han has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca and has received research support from Novartis and Sunovion. Dr. Yawn has served on advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim and has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Krishnan has disclosed no relevant financial relationshps. Dr. Hanania has received honoraria for serving as consultant or advisory board member for GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Teva, Genentech, and Amgen. His institution has received research grant support on his behalf from GSK, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Teva, and Novartis. Dr. Pace is on the advisory board for Mylan and has received stock from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Stryker, Amgen, Gilead, and Sanofi.

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

Primary care clinicians often struggle to care for their patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), thanks to a lack of real-world evidence as to which treatments work best.

As a result, potentially preventable life-threatening exacerbations are common among people with the condition. Central to the problem, some experts believe, is that the average patient bears little resemblance to participants in clinical trials of the medications used to treat COPD.

Indeed, a recent study showed that many COPD patients who were receiving maintenance therapy that should have been controlling their disease experienced severe flare-ups – a finding that caught the researchers by surprise.

“We know the benefit of COPD treatments in the context of clinical trials. However, the kinds of patients in primary care may not completely mimic those in clinical trials,” one of the authors, MeiLan Han, MD, a professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization. Dr. Han, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association, added that patients “may not be as adherent to medications in real life as they are in clinical trials.”

Randomized controlled trials that support regulatory drug approvals typically enroll patients who do not have comorbid conditions, who are younger than the average patient with COPD, and who typically are male. Patients are seen in resource-abundant settings designed to maximize adherence to treatment, with supports such as free medication and frequent monitoring – settings far different from those in which most primary care physicians practice.

The authors of the new article said trials conducted with typical patients in primary care settings could help physicians to optimize treatment.

Real-world evidence can shed light on physicians’ intent and on barriers to following guidelines, as well as important patient factors, such as adherence and good inhaler technique, Barbara Yawn, MD, an adjunct professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.
 

A window onto patient burden

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated $15 million Americans have COPD. Annual costs to the health care system approach $50 billion a year. The death rate for COPD has increased since 1969 as death rates of other major killers in the United States, such as heart disease and cancer, declined, according to a 2015 analysis of death records.

The new study, published in the July/August issue of the Annals of Family Medicine, provides a snapshot of COPD’s toll on patients.

Researchers examined electronic health records of 17,192 patients treated at primary care clinics in five states using a dataset maintained by DARTNet Institute, a nonprofit organization that supports research and quality improvement. They also analyzed self-reported assessments from 1,354 patients in the dataset who are in a registry called Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD.

Over half (56%) of patients were female, White (64%), aged 55-84 years (81%), and current or exsmokers (80%). The vast majority had three or more comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, and depression.

Serious flare-ups were common; 38% of patients had experienced one or more exacerbations in the previous year. Of registry respondents, half said they had had at least one exacerbation, and 20% said they had been hospitalized for COPD during that period.

Among patients in the registry, 43% reported that COPD had a high or very high impact on their health, and 45% could not walk at a normal pace without losing their breath.

Almost 90% of patients were receiving a maintenance therapy regimen. The number of exacerbations was “somewhat surprising,” the authors say. They write that the findings may indicate that patients were not receiving appropriate treatment or were not complying with their medication regimens and that there may be a need for nonpharmacologic interventions, such as smoking cessation. They also write that physician education is needed to support earlier diagnosis and treatment so as to delay declines in lung function.

The researchers say their findings highlight “the need for more real-life effectiveness trials to better support decision-making at the primary care level.”

Dr. Yawn is a coinvestigator of one such study, called CAPTURE, which is assessing a screening tool for COPD in primary care practices.

At the University of Illinois, Chicago, Jerry Krishnan, MD, PhD, pulmonologist and professor of medicine and public health, is running the RELIANCE study, which is comparing the use of azithromycin and roflumilast in preventing hospitalization and death among patients with COPD who continue to have exacerbations.

Although RELIANCE involves pulmonologists, Dr. Krishnan told this news organization, it offers a model for building real-world evidence on questions relevant to primary care. “We don’t really know if medications used by patients in my clinic are as effective as reported in clinical trials that were used to obtain regulatory approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” he said.

Wilson Pace, MD, a family physician and chief medical officer and chief technology officer of DARTNet, said funders of research are becoming aware of the need for real-world studies along with “gold standard” efficacy trials.

Dr. Pace, who helped conduct the new study, said a remaining obstacle to improving care is “a defeatist attitude of clinicians” who are skeptical about the ability of therapy to have an effect.

Real-world evidence could remedy clinician frustrations, he said. When clinicians are shown that they can improve patients’ quality of life and maybe even reduce the cost of care, “then they will hopefully pay attention,” he said.

Some experts who were not involved in the study said the findings offer an illuminating, although incomplete, picture. Nonpharmacologic interventions, the management of other health problems, and access to specialty care are not addressed, and the researchers didn’t have data on treatment adherence, inhaler technique, and patients’ peak inspiratory flow – factors that influence the effectiveness of medications. The study also lacked information on whether patients received pulmonary rehabilitation to help their heart and lungs work better.

Nicola Hanania, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Airways Clinical Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said the study “adds a lot to what we have known” but pointed out that COPD is grossly underdiagnosed.

According to one analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 72% of individuals with COPD don’t know they have the condition. Such patients were not included in the study, Dr. Hanania noted.

“We need pragmatic studies over multiple years to better understand” the condition, Dr. Yawn said. Real-world evidence “based in an academic setting or specialty practices is not sufficient,” she added. “We need to see results from patients and clinics that look like what we have.”

The registry was established and funded by Optimum Patient Care Global, a nonprofit organization, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Han has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca and has received research support from Novartis and Sunovion. Dr. Yawn has served on advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim and has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Krishnan has disclosed no relevant financial relationshps. Dr. Hanania has received honoraria for serving as consultant or advisory board member for GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Teva, Genentech, and Amgen. His institution has received research grant support on his behalf from GSK, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Teva, and Novartis. Dr. Pace is on the advisory board for Mylan and has received stock from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Stryker, Amgen, Gilead, and Sanofi.

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

Summer, since 1975, is traditionally a time for the BIG blockbusters to hit theaters. Some are new, others are sequels in successful franchises. Some anticipated, some not as much.

And, in summer 2022, we have the least-wanted sequel in modern history – Polio II: The Return.

Of course, this sequel isn’t in the theaters (unless the concessions staff isn’t washing their hands), definitely isn’t funny, and could potentially cost a lot more money than the latest Marvel Cinematic Universe flick.

Personally and professionally, I’m in the middle generation on the disease. I’m young enough that I never had to worry about catching it or having afflicted classmates. But, as a doctor, I’m old enough to still see the consequences. Like most neurologists, I have a handful of patients who had childhood polio, and still deal with the chronic weakness (and consequent pain and orthopedic issues it brings). Signing off on braces and other mobility aids for them is still commonplace.

One of my attendings in residency was the renowned Parkinson’s disease expert Abraham Lieberman. On rounds it was impossible not to notice his marked limp, a consequence of childhood polio, and he’d tell us what it was like, being a 6-year-old boy and dealing with the disease. You learn as much from hearing firsthand experiences as you do from textbooks.

And now the virus is showing up again. A few victims, a lot of virions circulating in waste water, but it shouldn’t be there at all.

We aren’t in the era when schoolchildren died or were crippled by it. Elementary school kids today don’t see classmates catch polio and never return to school, or see their grieving parents.

To take 1 year: More than 3,000 American children died of polio in 1952, and more than 21,000 were left with lifelong paralysis – many of them still among us.

When you think of an iron lung, you think of polio.

Those were the casualties in a war to save future generations from this, along with smallpox and other horrors.

But today, that war is mostly forgotten. And now scientific evidence is drowned out by whatever’s on Facebook and the hard-earned miracle of vaccination is ignored in favor of a nonmedical “social influencer” on YouTube.

So polio is back. The majority of the population likely has nothing to worry about. But there may be segments that are hit hard, and when they are they will never accept the obvious reasons why. It will be part of a cover-up, or a conspiracy, or whatever the guy on Parler told them it was.

As doctors, we’re in the middle. We have to give patients the best recommendations we can, based on learning, evidence, and experience, but at the same time have to recognize their autonomy. I’m not following someone around to make sure they get vaccinated, or take the medication I prescribed.

But we’re also the ones who can be held legally responsible for bad outcomes, regardless of the actual facts of the matter. On the flip side, you don’t hear about someone suing a Facebook “influencer” for doling out inaccurate, potentially fatal, medical advice.

So cracks appear in herd immunity, and leaks will happen.

A few generations of neurologists, including mine, have completed training without considering polio in a differential diagnosis. It would, of course, get bandied about in grand rounds or at the conference table, but none of us really took it seriously. To us residents it was more of historical note. “Gone with the Wind” and the “Wizard of Oz” both came out in 1939, and while we all knew of them, none of us were going to be watching them at the theaters.

Unlike them, though, polio is trying make it back to prime time. It’s a sequel nobody wanted.

But here it is.

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

Summer, since 1975, is traditionally a time for the BIG blockbusters to hit theaters. Some are new, others are sequels in successful franchises. Some anticipated, some not as much.

And, in summer 2022, we have the least-wanted sequel in modern history – Polio II: The Return.

Of course, this sequel isn’t in the theaters (unless the concessions staff isn’t washing their hands), definitely isn’t funny, and could potentially cost a lot more money than the latest Marvel Cinematic Universe flick.

Personally and professionally, I’m in the middle generation on the disease. I’m young enough that I never had to worry about catching it or having afflicted classmates. But, as a doctor, I’m old enough to still see the consequences. Like most neurologists, I have a handful of patients who had childhood polio, and still deal with the chronic weakness (and consequent pain and orthopedic issues it brings). Signing off on braces and other mobility aids for them is still commonplace.

One of my attendings in residency was the renowned Parkinson’s disease expert Abraham Lieberman. On rounds it was impossible not to notice his marked limp, a consequence of childhood polio, and he’d tell us what it was like, being a 6-year-old boy and dealing with the disease. You learn as much from hearing firsthand experiences as you do from textbooks.

And now the virus is showing up again. A few victims, a lot of virions circulating in waste water, but it shouldn’t be there at all.

We aren’t in the era when schoolchildren died or were crippled by it. Elementary school kids today don’t see classmates catch polio and never return to school, or see their grieving parents.

To take 1 year: More than 3,000 American children died of polio in 1952, and more than 21,000 were left with lifelong paralysis – many of them still among us.

When you think of an iron lung, you think of polio.

Those were the casualties in a war to save future generations from this, along with smallpox and other horrors.

But today, that war is mostly forgotten. And now scientific evidence is drowned out by whatever’s on Facebook and the hard-earned miracle of vaccination is ignored in favor of a nonmedical “social influencer” on YouTube.

So polio is back. The majority of the population likely has nothing to worry about. But there may be segments that are hit hard, and when they are they will never accept the obvious reasons why. It will be part of a cover-up, or a conspiracy, or whatever the guy on Parler told them it was.

As doctors, we’re in the middle. We have to give patients the best recommendations we can, based on learning, evidence, and experience, but at the same time have to recognize their autonomy. I’m not following someone around to make sure they get vaccinated, or take the medication I prescribed.

But we’re also the ones who can be held legally responsible for bad outcomes, regardless of the actual facts of the matter. On the flip side, you don’t hear about someone suing a Facebook “influencer” for doling out inaccurate, potentially fatal, medical advice.

So cracks appear in herd immunity, and leaks will happen.

A few generations of neurologists, including mine, have completed training without considering polio in a differential diagnosis. It would, of course, get bandied about in grand rounds or at the conference table, but none of us really took it seriously. To us residents it was more of historical note. “Gone with the Wind” and the “Wizard of Oz” both came out in 1939, and while we all knew of them, none of us were going to be watching them at the theaters.

Unlike them, though, polio is trying make it back to prime time. It’s a sequel nobody wanted.

But here it is.

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

Summer, since 1975, is traditionally a time for the BIG blockbusters to hit theaters. Some are new, others are sequels in successful franchises. Some anticipated, some not as much.

And, in summer 2022, we have the least-wanted sequel in modern history – Polio II: The Return.

Of course, this sequel isn’t in the theaters (unless the concessions staff isn’t washing their hands), definitely isn’t funny, and could potentially cost a lot more money than the latest Marvel Cinematic Universe flick.

Personally and professionally, I’m in the middle generation on the disease. I’m young enough that I never had to worry about catching it or having afflicted classmates. But, as a doctor, I’m old enough to still see the consequences. Like most neurologists, I have a handful of patients who had childhood polio, and still deal with the chronic weakness (and consequent pain and orthopedic issues it brings). Signing off on braces and other mobility aids for them is still commonplace.

One of my attendings in residency was the renowned Parkinson’s disease expert Abraham Lieberman. On rounds it was impossible not to notice his marked limp, a consequence of childhood polio, and he’d tell us what it was like, being a 6-year-old boy and dealing with the disease. You learn as much from hearing firsthand experiences as you do from textbooks.

And now the virus is showing up again. A few victims, a lot of virions circulating in waste water, but it shouldn’t be there at all.

We aren’t in the era when schoolchildren died or were crippled by it. Elementary school kids today don’t see classmates catch polio and never return to school, or see their grieving parents.

To take 1 year: More than 3,000 American children died of polio in 1952, and more than 21,000 were left with lifelong paralysis – many of them still among us.

When you think of an iron lung, you think of polio.

Those were the casualties in a war to save future generations from this, along with smallpox and other horrors.

But today, that war is mostly forgotten. And now scientific evidence is drowned out by whatever’s on Facebook and the hard-earned miracle of vaccination is ignored in favor of a nonmedical “social influencer” on YouTube.

So polio is back. The majority of the population likely has nothing to worry about. But there may be segments that are hit hard, and when they are they will never accept the obvious reasons why. It will be part of a cover-up, or a conspiracy, or whatever the guy on Parler told them it was.

As doctors, we’re in the middle. We have to give patients the best recommendations we can, based on learning, evidence, and experience, but at the same time have to recognize their autonomy. I’m not following someone around to make sure they get vaccinated, or take the medication I prescribed.

But we’re also the ones who can be held legally responsible for bad outcomes, regardless of the actual facts of the matter. On the flip side, you don’t hear about someone suing a Facebook “influencer” for doling out inaccurate, potentially fatal, medical advice.

So cracks appear in herd immunity, and leaks will happen.

A few generations of neurologists, including mine, have completed training without considering polio in a differential diagnosis. It would, of course, get bandied about in grand rounds or at the conference table, but none of us really took it seriously. To us residents it was more of historical note. “Gone with the Wind” and the “Wizard of Oz” both came out in 1939, and while we all knew of them, none of us were going to be watching them at the theaters.

Unlike them, though, polio is trying make it back to prime time. It’s a sequel nobody wanted.

But here it is.

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

My group in Rochester, N.Y., examined the current pneumococcal serotypes causing AOM in children. From our data, we can determine the PCV13 vaccine types that escape prevention and cause AOM and understand what effect to expect from the new pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) that will be coming soon. There are limited data from middle ear fluid (MEF) cultures on which to base such analyses. Tympanocentesis is the preferred method for securing MEF for culture and our group is unique in providing such data to the Centers for Disease Control and publishing our results on a periodic basis to inform clinicians.

Pneumococci are the second most common cause of acute otitis media (AOM) since the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) more than 2 decades ago.^1,2 Pneumococcal AOM causes more severe acute disease and more often causes suppurative complications than Haemophilus influenzae, which is the most common cause of AOM. Prevention of pneumococcal AOM will be a highly relevant contributor to cost-effectiveness analyses for the anticipated introduction of PCV15 (Merck) and PCV20 (Pfizer). Both PCV15 and PCV20 have been licensed for adult use; PCV15 licensure for infants and children occurred in June 2022 for invasive pneumococcal disease and is anticipated in the near future for PCV20. They are improvements over PCV13 because they add serotypes that cause invasive pneumococcal diseases, although less so for prevention of AOM, on the basis of our data.

Nasopharyngeal colonization is a necessary pathogenic step in progression to pneumococcal disease. However, not all strains of pneumococci expressing different capsular serotypes are equally virulent and likely to cause disease. In PCV-vaccinated populations, vaccine pressure and antibiotic resistance drive PCV serotype replacement with nonvaccine serotypes (NVTs), gradually reducing the net effectiveness of the vaccines. Therefore, knowledge of prevalent NVTs colonizing the nasopharynx identifies future pneumococcal serotypes most likely to emerge as pathogenic.

We published an effectiveness study of PCV13.³ A relative reduction of 86% in AOM caused by strains expressing PCV13 serotypes was observed in the first few years after PCV13 introduction. The greatest reduction in MEF samples was in serotype 19A, with a relative reduction of 91%. However, over time the vaccine type efficacy of PCV13 against MEF-positive pneumococcal AOM has eroded. There was no clear efficacy against serotype 3, and we still observed cases of serotype 19A and 19F. PCV13 vaccine failures have been even more frequent in Europe (nearly 30% of pneumococcal AOM in Europe is caused by vaccine serotypes) than our data indicate, where about 10% of AOM is caused by PCV13 serotypes.

In our most recent publication covering 2015-2019, we described results from 589 children, aged 6-36 months, from whom we collected 2,042 nasopharyngeal samples.^2,4 During AOM, 495 MEF samples from 319 AOM-infected children were collected (during bilateral infections, tympanocentesis was performed in both ears). Whether bacteria were isolated was based per AOM case, not per tap. The average age of children with AOM was 15 months (range 6-31 months). The three most prevalent nasopharyngeal pneumococcal serotypes were 35B, 23B, and 15B/C. Serotype 35B was the most common at AOM visits in both the nasopharynx and MEF samples followed by serotype 15B/C. Nonsusceptibility among pneumococci to penicillin, azithromycin, and multiple other antibiotics was high. Increasing resistance to ceftriaxone was also observed.

Based on our results, if PCV15 (PCV13 + 22F and 33F) effectiveness is identical to PCV13 for the included serotypes and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes is presumed, PCV15 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 8%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 6%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3%. As for the projected reductions brought about by PCV20 (PCV15 + 8, 10A, 11A, 12F, and 15B), presuming serotype 15B is efficacious against serotype 15C and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes, PCV20 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 22%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 20%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3% (Figure).

The CDC estimated that, in 2004, pneumococcal disease in the United States caused 4 million illness episodes, 22,000 deaths, 445,000 hospitalizations, 774,000 emergency department visits, 5 million outpatient visits, and 4.1 million outpatient antibiotic prescriptions. Direct medical costs totaled $3.5 billion. Pneumonia (866,000 cases) accounted for 22% of all cases and 72% of pneumococcal costs. AOM and sinusitis (1.5 million cases each) composed 75% of cases and 16% of direct medical costs.⁵ However, if indirect costs are taken into account, such as work loss by parents of young children, the cost of pneumococcal disease caused by AOM alone may exceed $6 billion annually⁶ and become dominant in the cost-effectiveness analysis in high-income countries.

Despite widespread use of PCV13, Pneumococcus has shown its resilience under vaccine pressure such that the organism remains a very common AOM pathogen. All-cause AOM has declined modestly and pneumococcal AOM caused by the specific serotypes in PCVs has declined dramatically since the introduction of PCVs. However, the burden of pneumococcal AOM disease is still considerable.

The notion that strains expressing serotypes that were not included in PCV7 were less virulent was proven wrong within a few years after introduction of PCV7, with the emergence of strains expressing serotype 19A, and others. The same cycle occurred after introduction of PCV13. It appears to take about 4 years after introduction of a PCV before peak effectiveness is achieved – which then begins to erode with emergence of NVTs. First, the NVTs are observed to colonize the nasopharynx as commensals and then from among those strains new disease-causing strains emerge.

At the most recent meeting of the International Society of Pneumococci and Pneumococcal Diseases in Toronto in June, many presentations focused on the fact that PCVs elicit highly effective protective serotype-specific antibodies to the capsular polysaccharides of included types. However, 100 serotypes are known. The limitations of PCVs are becoming increasingly apparent. They are costly and consume a large portion of the Vaccines for Children budget. Children in the developing world remain largely unvaccinated because of the high cost. NVTs that have emerged to cause disease vary by country, vary by adult vs. pediatric populations, and are dynamically changing year to year. Forthcoming PCVs of 15 and 20 serotypes will be even more costly than PCV13, will not include many newly emerged serotypes, and will probably likewise encounter “serotype replacement” because of high immune evasion by pneumococci.

When Merck and Pfizer made their decisions on serotype composition for PCV15 and PCV20, respectively, they were based on available data at the time regarding predominant serotypes causing invasive pneumococcal disease in countries that had the best data and would be the market for their products. However, from the time of the decision to licensure of vaccine is many years, and during that time the pneumococcal serotypes have changed, more so for AOM, and I predict more change will occur in the future.

In the past 3 years, Dr. Pichichero has received honoraria from Merck to attend 1-day consulting meetings and his institution has received investigator-initiated research grants to study aspects of PCV15. In the past 3 years, he was reimbursed for expenses to attend the ISPPD meeting in Toronto to present a poster on potential efficacy of PCV20 to prevent complicated AOM.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3).

2. Kaur R et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;41:37-44..

3. Pichichero M et al. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018;2(8):561-8.

4. Zhou F et al. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2):253-60.

5. Huang SS et al. Vaccine. 2011;29(18):3398-412.

6. Casey JR and Pichichero ME. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2014;53(9):865-73. .
 

My group in Rochester, N.Y., examined the current pneumococcal serotypes causing AOM in children. From our data, we can determine the PCV13 vaccine types that escape prevention and cause AOM and understand what effect to expect from the new pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) that will be coming soon. There are limited data from middle ear fluid (MEF) cultures on which to base such analyses. Tympanocentesis is the preferred method for securing MEF for culture and our group is unique in providing such data to the Centers for Disease Control and publishing our results on a periodic basis to inform clinicians.

Pneumococci are the second most common cause of acute otitis media (AOM) since the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) more than 2 decades ago.^1,2 Pneumococcal AOM causes more severe acute disease and more often causes suppurative complications than Haemophilus influenzae, which is the most common cause of AOM. Prevention of pneumococcal AOM will be a highly relevant contributor to cost-effectiveness analyses for the anticipated introduction of PCV15 (Merck) and PCV20 (Pfizer). Both PCV15 and PCV20 have been licensed for adult use; PCV15 licensure for infants and children occurred in June 2022 for invasive pneumococcal disease and is anticipated in the near future for PCV20. They are improvements over PCV13 because they add serotypes that cause invasive pneumococcal diseases, although less so for prevention of AOM, on the basis of our data.

Nasopharyngeal colonization is a necessary pathogenic step in progression to pneumococcal disease. However, not all strains of pneumococci expressing different capsular serotypes are equally virulent and likely to cause disease. In PCV-vaccinated populations, vaccine pressure and antibiotic resistance drive PCV serotype replacement with nonvaccine serotypes (NVTs), gradually reducing the net effectiveness of the vaccines. Therefore, knowledge of prevalent NVTs colonizing the nasopharynx identifies future pneumococcal serotypes most likely to emerge as pathogenic.

We published an effectiveness study of PCV13.³ A relative reduction of 86% in AOM caused by strains expressing PCV13 serotypes was observed in the first few years after PCV13 introduction. The greatest reduction in MEF samples was in serotype 19A, with a relative reduction of 91%. However, over time the vaccine type efficacy of PCV13 against MEF-positive pneumococcal AOM has eroded. There was no clear efficacy against serotype 3, and we still observed cases of serotype 19A and 19F. PCV13 vaccine failures have been even more frequent in Europe (nearly 30% of pneumococcal AOM in Europe is caused by vaccine serotypes) than our data indicate, where about 10% of AOM is caused by PCV13 serotypes.

In our most recent publication covering 2015-2019, we described results from 589 children, aged 6-36 months, from whom we collected 2,042 nasopharyngeal samples.^2,4 During AOM, 495 MEF samples from 319 AOM-infected children were collected (during bilateral infections, tympanocentesis was performed in both ears). Whether bacteria were isolated was based per AOM case, not per tap. The average age of children with AOM was 15 months (range 6-31 months). The three most prevalent nasopharyngeal pneumococcal serotypes were 35B, 23B, and 15B/C. Serotype 35B was the most common at AOM visits in both the nasopharynx and MEF samples followed by serotype 15B/C. Nonsusceptibility among pneumococci to penicillin, azithromycin, and multiple other antibiotics was high. Increasing resistance to ceftriaxone was also observed.

Based on our results, if PCV15 (PCV13 + 22F and 33F) effectiveness is identical to PCV13 for the included serotypes and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes is presumed, PCV15 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 8%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 6%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3%. As for the projected reductions brought about by PCV20 (PCV15 + 8, 10A, 11A, 12F, and 15B), presuming serotype 15B is efficacious against serotype 15C and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes, PCV20 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 22%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 20%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3% (Figure).

The CDC estimated that, in 2004, pneumococcal disease in the United States caused 4 million illness episodes, 22,000 deaths, 445,000 hospitalizations, 774,000 emergency department visits, 5 million outpatient visits, and 4.1 million outpatient antibiotic prescriptions. Direct medical costs totaled $3.5 billion. Pneumonia (866,000 cases) accounted for 22% of all cases and 72% of pneumococcal costs. AOM and sinusitis (1.5 million cases each) composed 75% of cases and 16% of direct medical costs.⁵ However, if indirect costs are taken into account, such as work loss by parents of young children, the cost of pneumococcal disease caused by AOM alone may exceed $6 billion annually⁶ and become dominant in the cost-effectiveness analysis in high-income countries.

Despite widespread use of PCV13, Pneumococcus has shown its resilience under vaccine pressure such that the organism remains a very common AOM pathogen. All-cause AOM has declined modestly and pneumococcal AOM caused by the specific serotypes in PCVs has declined dramatically since the introduction of PCVs. However, the burden of pneumococcal AOM disease is still considerable.

The notion that strains expressing serotypes that were not included in PCV7 were less virulent was proven wrong within a few years after introduction of PCV7, with the emergence of strains expressing serotype 19A, and others. The same cycle occurred after introduction of PCV13. It appears to take about 4 years after introduction of a PCV before peak effectiveness is achieved – which then begins to erode with emergence of NVTs. First, the NVTs are observed to colonize the nasopharynx as commensals and then from among those strains new disease-causing strains emerge.

At the most recent meeting of the International Society of Pneumococci and Pneumococcal Diseases in Toronto in June, many presentations focused on the fact that PCVs elicit highly effective protective serotype-specific antibodies to the capsular polysaccharides of included types. However, 100 serotypes are known. The limitations of PCVs are becoming increasingly apparent. They are costly and consume a large portion of the Vaccines for Children budget. Children in the developing world remain largely unvaccinated because of the high cost. NVTs that have emerged to cause disease vary by country, vary by adult vs. pediatric populations, and are dynamically changing year to year. Forthcoming PCVs of 15 and 20 serotypes will be even more costly than PCV13, will not include many newly emerged serotypes, and will probably likewise encounter “serotype replacement” because of high immune evasion by pneumococci.

When Merck and Pfizer made their decisions on serotype composition for PCV15 and PCV20, respectively, they were based on available data at the time regarding predominant serotypes causing invasive pneumococcal disease in countries that had the best data and would be the market for their products. However, from the time of the decision to licensure of vaccine is many years, and during that time the pneumococcal serotypes have changed, more so for AOM, and I predict more change will occur in the future.

In the past 3 years, Dr. Pichichero has received honoraria from Merck to attend 1-day consulting meetings and his institution has received investigator-initiated research grants to study aspects of PCV15. In the past 3 years, he was reimbursed for expenses to attend the ISPPD meeting in Toronto to present a poster on potential efficacy of PCV20 to prevent complicated AOM.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3).

2. Kaur R et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;41:37-44..

3. Pichichero M et al. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018;2(8):561-8.

4. Zhou F et al. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2):253-60.

5. Huang SS et al. Vaccine. 2011;29(18):3398-412.

6. Casey JR and Pichichero ME. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2014;53(9):865-73. .
 

My group in Rochester, N.Y., examined the current pneumococcal serotypes causing AOM in children. From our data, we can determine the PCV13 vaccine types that escape prevention and cause AOM and understand what effect to expect from the new pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) that will be coming soon. There are limited data from middle ear fluid (MEF) cultures on which to base such analyses. Tympanocentesis is the preferred method for securing MEF for culture and our group is unique in providing such data to the Centers for Disease Control and publishing our results on a periodic basis to inform clinicians.

Pneumococci are the second most common cause of acute otitis media (AOM) since the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) more than 2 decades ago.^1,2 Pneumococcal AOM causes more severe acute disease and more often causes suppurative complications than Haemophilus influenzae, which is the most common cause of AOM. Prevention of pneumococcal AOM will be a highly relevant contributor to cost-effectiveness analyses for the anticipated introduction of PCV15 (Merck) and PCV20 (Pfizer). Both PCV15 and PCV20 have been licensed for adult use; PCV15 licensure for infants and children occurred in June 2022 for invasive pneumococcal disease and is anticipated in the near future for PCV20. They are improvements over PCV13 because they add serotypes that cause invasive pneumococcal diseases, although less so for prevention of AOM, on the basis of our data.

Nasopharyngeal colonization is a necessary pathogenic step in progression to pneumococcal disease. However, not all strains of pneumococci expressing different capsular serotypes are equally virulent and likely to cause disease. In PCV-vaccinated populations, vaccine pressure and antibiotic resistance drive PCV serotype replacement with nonvaccine serotypes (NVTs), gradually reducing the net effectiveness of the vaccines. Therefore, knowledge of prevalent NVTs colonizing the nasopharynx identifies future pneumococcal serotypes most likely to emerge as pathogenic.

We published an effectiveness study of PCV13.³ A relative reduction of 86% in AOM caused by strains expressing PCV13 serotypes was observed in the first few years after PCV13 introduction. The greatest reduction in MEF samples was in serotype 19A, with a relative reduction of 91%. However, over time the vaccine type efficacy of PCV13 against MEF-positive pneumococcal AOM has eroded. There was no clear efficacy against serotype 3, and we still observed cases of serotype 19A and 19F. PCV13 vaccine failures have been even more frequent in Europe (nearly 30% of pneumococcal AOM in Europe is caused by vaccine serotypes) than our data indicate, where about 10% of AOM is caused by PCV13 serotypes.

In our most recent publication covering 2015-2019, we described results from 589 children, aged 6-36 months, from whom we collected 2,042 nasopharyngeal samples.^2,4 During AOM, 495 MEF samples from 319 AOM-infected children were collected (during bilateral infections, tympanocentesis was performed in both ears). Whether bacteria were isolated was based per AOM case, not per tap. The average age of children with AOM was 15 months (range 6-31 months). The three most prevalent nasopharyngeal pneumococcal serotypes were 35B, 23B, and 15B/C. Serotype 35B was the most common at AOM visits in both the nasopharynx and MEF samples followed by serotype 15B/C. Nonsusceptibility among pneumococci to penicillin, azithromycin, and multiple other antibiotics was high. Increasing resistance to ceftriaxone was also observed.

Based on our results, if PCV15 (PCV13 + 22F and 33F) effectiveness is identical to PCV13 for the included serotypes and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes is presumed, PCV15 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 8%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 6%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3%. As for the projected reductions brought about by PCV20 (PCV15 + 8, 10A, 11A, 12F, and 15B), presuming serotype 15B is efficacious against serotype 15C and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes, PCV20 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 22%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 20%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3% (Figure).

The CDC estimated that, in 2004, pneumococcal disease in the United States caused 4 million illness episodes, 22,000 deaths, 445,000 hospitalizations, 774,000 emergency department visits, 5 million outpatient visits, and 4.1 million outpatient antibiotic prescriptions. Direct medical costs totaled $3.5 billion. Pneumonia (866,000 cases) accounted for 22% of all cases and 72% of pneumococcal costs. AOM and sinusitis (1.5 million cases each) composed 75% of cases and 16% of direct medical costs.⁵ However, if indirect costs are taken into account, such as work loss by parents of young children, the cost of pneumococcal disease caused by AOM alone may exceed $6 billion annually⁶ and become dominant in the cost-effectiveness analysis in high-income countries.

Despite widespread use of PCV13, Pneumococcus has shown its resilience under vaccine pressure such that the organism remains a very common AOM pathogen. All-cause AOM has declined modestly and pneumococcal AOM caused by the specific serotypes in PCVs has declined dramatically since the introduction of PCVs. However, the burden of pneumococcal AOM disease is still considerable.

The notion that strains expressing serotypes that were not included in PCV7 were less virulent was proven wrong within a few years after introduction of PCV7, with the emergence of strains expressing serotype 19A, and others. The same cycle occurred after introduction of PCV13. It appears to take about 4 years after introduction of a PCV before peak effectiveness is achieved – which then begins to erode with emergence of NVTs. First, the NVTs are observed to colonize the nasopharynx as commensals and then from among those strains new disease-causing strains emerge.

At the most recent meeting of the International Society of Pneumococci and Pneumococcal Diseases in Toronto in June, many presentations focused on the fact that PCVs elicit highly effective protective serotype-specific antibodies to the capsular polysaccharides of included types. However, 100 serotypes are known. The limitations of PCVs are becoming increasingly apparent. They are costly and consume a large portion of the Vaccines for Children budget. Children in the developing world remain largely unvaccinated because of the high cost. NVTs that have emerged to cause disease vary by country, vary by adult vs. pediatric populations, and are dynamically changing year to year. Forthcoming PCVs of 15 and 20 serotypes will be even more costly than PCV13, will not include many newly emerged serotypes, and will probably likewise encounter “serotype replacement” because of high immune evasion by pneumococci.

When Merck and Pfizer made their decisions on serotype composition for PCV15 and PCV20, respectively, they were based on available data at the time regarding predominant serotypes causing invasive pneumococcal disease in countries that had the best data and would be the market for their products. However, from the time of the decision to licensure of vaccine is many years, and during that time the pneumococcal serotypes have changed, more so for AOM, and I predict more change will occur in the future.

In the past 3 years, Dr. Pichichero has received honoraria from Merck to attend 1-day consulting meetings and his institution has received investigator-initiated research grants to study aspects of PCV15. In the past 3 years, he was reimbursed for expenses to attend the ISPPD meeting in Toronto to present a poster on potential efficacy of PCV20 to prevent complicated AOM.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3).

2. Kaur R et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;41:37-44..

3. Pichichero M et al. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018;2(8):561-8.

4. Zhou F et al. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2):253-60.

5. Huang SS et al. Vaccine. 2011;29(18):3398-412.

6. Casey JR and Pichichero ME. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2014;53(9):865-73. .
 

Lung cancer has been the leading cause of cancer-related mortality for decades. It is also predicted to remain as the leading cause of cancer-related mortality through 2030.¹ Platinum-based chemotherapy, including carboplatin and paclitaxel, was introduced 3 decades ago and revolutionized the management of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A more recent advancement has been mutant epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase (EGFR-TK) inhibitors.¹ EGFR is a transmembrane protein that functions by transducing essential growth factor signaling from the extracellular milieu to the cell. As 60% of the advanced NSCLC expresses this receptor, blocking the mutant EGFR receptor was a groundbreaking development in the management of advanced NSCLC.² Development of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors has revolutionized the management of advanced NSCLC. This study was conducted to determine the safety profile of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in the management of advanced NSCLC.

Methods 

This meta-analysis was conducted according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and reported as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The findings are summarized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). Two authors (MZ and MM) performed a systematic literature search using databases such as MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library using the medical search terms and their respective entry words with the following search strategy: safety, “mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors,” advanced, “non–small cell,” “lung cancer,” “adverse effect,” and literature. Additionally, unpublished trials were identified from clinicaltrials.gov, and references of all pertinent articles were also scrutinized to ensure the inclusion of all relevant studies. The search was completed on June 1, 2021, and we only included studies available in English. Two authors (MM and MZ) independently screened the search results in a 2-step process based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. First, 890 articles were evaluated for relevance on title and abstract level, followed by full-text screening of the final list of 140 articles. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or third-party review, and a total of 9 articles were included in the study.

The following eligibility criteria were used: original articles reporting adverse effects (AEs) of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC compared with control groups receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. All the patients included in the study had an EGFR mutation but randomly assigned to either treatment or control group. All articles with subjective data on mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors AEs in patients with advanced NSCLC compared with control groups receiving platinum-based chemotherapy were included in the analysis. Only 9 articles qualified the aforementioned selection criteria for eligibility. All qualifying studies were nationwide inpatient or pooled clinical trials data. The reasons for exclusion of the other 71 articles were irrelevant (n = 31), duplicate (n = 13), reviews (n = 14), and poor data reporting (n = 12). Out of the 9 included studies, 9 studies showed correlation of AEs, including rash, diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue. Seven studies showed correlation of AEs including neutropenia, anorexia, and vomiting. Six studies showed correlation of anemia, cough, and stomatitis. Five studies showed correlation of elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and leucopenia. Four studies showed correlation of fever between mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy.

The primary endpoints were reported AEs including rash, diarrhea, elevated ALT, elevated AST, stomatitis, nausea, leucopenia, fatigue, neutropenia, anorexia, anemia, cough, vomiting, and fever, respectively. Data on baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were then extracted, and summary tables were created. Summary estimates of the clinical endpoints were then calculated with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies was examined with the Cochran Q I² statistic which can be defined as low (25% to 50%), moderate (50% to 75%), or high (> 75%). Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software CMA Version 3.0.

Results

A total of 9 studies including 3415 patients (1775 in EGFR-TK inhibitor treatment group while 1640 patients in platinum-based chemotherapy control group) were included in the study. All 9 studies were phase III randomized control clinical trials conducted to compare the safety profile of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC. Mean age was 61 years in both treatment and control groups. Further details on study and participant characteristics and safety profile including AEs are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. No evidence of publication bias was found.

Rash developed in 45.8% of patients in the treatment group receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors vs only 5.6% of patients in the control group receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall RR of 7.38 with the 95% CI noted, which was statistically significant, confirming higher rash event rates in patients receiving EGFR-TK inhibitors for their advanced NSCLC (Figure 2).

Diarrhea occurred in 33.6% of patients in the mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors treatment group vs 13.5% of patients in the control group receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall RR of 2.63 and 95% CI was noted, which was statistically significant, confirming higher diarrheal rates in patients receiving EGFR-TK inhibitors for their advanced NSCLC (Figure 3).

Discussion

Despite the advancement in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC, lung cancer stays as most common cause of cancer-related death in North America and European countries, as patients usually have an advanced disease at the time of diagnosis.³ In the past, platinum-based chemotherapy remained the standard of care for most of the patients affected with advanced NSCLC, but the higher recurrence rate and increase in frequency and intensity of AEs with platinum-based chemotherapy led to the development of targeted therapy for NSCLC, one of which includes mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors, including erlotinib, gefitinib, dacomitinib, lapatinib, and osimertinib.⁴

Smoking is the most common reversible risk factor associated with lung cancer. The EURTAC trial was the first perspective study in this regard, which compared safety and efficacy of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors with platinum-based chemotherapy. Results analyzed in this study were in favor of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors except in the group of former smokers.⁵ On the contrary, the OPTIMAL trial showed results in favor of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors both in active and former smokers; this trial also confirmed the efficacy of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in European and Asian populations, confirming the rationale for routine testing of EGFR mutation in all the patients being diagnosed with advanced NSCLC.⁶ Similarly, osimertinib is one of the most recent mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors developed for the treatment of advanced NSCLC in patients with EGFR-positive receptors.

According to the FLAURA trial, patients receiving osimertinib showed significantly longer progression-free survival compared with platinum-based chemotherapy and early mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors. Median progression-free survival was noted to be 18.9 months, which showed 54% lower risk of disease progression in the treatment group receiving osimertinib.⁷ The ARCHER study emphasized a significant improvement in overall survival as well as progression-free survival among a patient population receiving dacomitinib compared with platinum-based chemotherapy.^8,9

Being a potent targeted therapy, mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors do come with some AEs including diarrhea, which was seen in 33.6% of the patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in our study vs 53% in the chemotherapy group, as was observed in the study conducted by Pless and colleagues.¹⁰ Similarly, only 16.5% of patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors developed nausea compared with 66% being observed in patients receiving chemotherapy. Correspondingly, only a small fraction of patients (9.7%) receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors developed leucopenia, which was 10 times less reported in mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors compared with patients receiving chemotherapy having a percentage of 100%. A similar trend was reported for neutropenia and anemia in mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors with an incidence of 6.1% and 8.7%, compared with the platinum-based chemotherapy group in which the incidence was found to be 80% and 100%, respectively. It was concluded that platinum-based chemotherapy had played a vital role in the treatment of advanced NSCLC but at an expense of serious and severe AEs which led to discontinuation or withdrawal of treatment, leading to relapse and recurrence of lung cancer.^10,11

Zhong and colleagues conducted a phase 2 randomized clinical trial comparing mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors with platinum-based chemotherapy. They concluded that in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, incidence of rash, vomiting, anorexia, neutropenia, and nausea were 29.4%, 47%, 41.2%, 55.8%, and 32.4% compared with 45.8%, 11%, 21.3%, 6.1%, and 16.5%, respectively, reported in patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors for their advanced NSCLC.¹²

Another study was conducted in 2019 by Noronha and colleagues to determine the impact of platinum-based chemotherapy combined with gefitinib on patients with advanced NSCLC.¹³ They concluded that 70% of the patients receiving combination treatment developed rash, which was significantly higher compared with 45.8% patients receiving the mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors alone in our study. Also, 56% of patients receiving combination therapy developed diarrhea vs 33.6% of patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors only. Similarly, 96% of patients in the combination therapy group developed some degree of anemia compared with only 8.7% patients in the mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors group included in our study. In the same way, neutropenia was observed in 55% of patients receiving combination therapy vs 6.1% in patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors solely. They concluded that mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy increase the incidence of AEs of chemotherapy by many folds.^13,14

Kato and colleagues conducted a study to determine the impact on AEs when erlotinib was combined with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors like bevacizumab, they stated that 98.7% of patient in combination therapy developed rash, the incidence of which was only 45.8% in patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors as was observed in our study. Similar trends were noticed with other AEs, including diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and elevated liver enzymes.¹⁵

Conclusions

Our study focused on the safety profile of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors vs platinum-based chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors are safer than platinum-based chemotherapy when compared for nausea, leucopenia, fatigue, neutropenia, anorexia, anemia, cough, vomiting, and fever. On the other end, mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors cause slightly higher AEs, including rash, diarrhea, elevated AST and ALT levels, and stomatitis. However, considering that the development of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors laid a foundation of targeted therapy, we recommend continuing using mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC especially in patients having mutant EGFR receptors. AEs caused by mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors are significant but are usually tolerable and can be avoided by reducing the dosage of it with each cycle or by skipping or delaying the dose until the patient is symptomatic.

Lung cancer has been the leading cause of cancer-related mortality for decades. It is also predicted to remain as the leading cause of cancer-related mortality through 2030.¹ Platinum-based chemotherapy, including carboplatin and paclitaxel, was introduced 3 decades ago and revolutionized the management of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A more recent advancement has been mutant epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase (EGFR-TK) inhibitors.¹ EGFR is a transmembrane protein that functions by transducing essential growth factor signaling from the extracellular milieu to the cell. As 60% of the advanced NSCLC expresses this receptor, blocking the mutant EGFR receptor was a groundbreaking development in the management of advanced NSCLC.² Development of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors has revolutionized the management of advanced NSCLC. This study was conducted to determine the safety profile of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in the management of advanced NSCLC.

Methods 

This meta-analysis was conducted according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and reported as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The findings are summarized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). Two authors (MZ and MM) performed a systematic literature search using databases such as MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library using the medical search terms and their respective entry words with the following search strategy: safety, “mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors,” advanced, “non–small cell,” “lung cancer,” “adverse effect,” and literature. Additionally, unpublished trials were identified from clinicaltrials.gov, and references of all pertinent articles were also scrutinized to ensure the inclusion of all relevant studies. The search was completed on June 1, 2021, and we only included studies available in English. Two authors (MM and MZ) independently screened the search results in a 2-step process based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. First, 890 articles were evaluated for relevance on title and abstract level, followed by full-text screening of the final list of 140 articles. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or third-party review, and a total of 9 articles were included in the study.

The following eligibility criteria were used: original articles reporting adverse effects (AEs) of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC compared with control groups receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. All the patients included in the study had an EGFR mutation but randomly assigned to either treatment or control group. All articles with subjective data on mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors AEs in patients with advanced NSCLC compared with control groups receiving platinum-based chemotherapy were included in the analysis. Only 9 articles qualified the aforementioned selection criteria for eligibility. All qualifying studies were nationwide inpatient or pooled clinical trials data. The reasons for exclusion of the other 71 articles were irrelevant (n = 31), duplicate (n = 13), reviews (n = 14), and poor data reporting (n = 12). Out of the 9 included studies, 9 studies showed correlation of AEs, including rash, diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue. Seven studies showed correlation of AEs including neutropenia, anorexia, and vomiting. Six studies showed correlation of anemia, cough, and stomatitis. Five studies showed correlation of elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and leucopenia. Four studies showed correlation of fever between mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy.

The primary endpoints were reported AEs including rash, diarrhea, elevated ALT, elevated AST, stomatitis, nausea, leucopenia, fatigue, neutropenia, anorexia, anemia, cough, vomiting, and fever, respectively. Data on baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were then extracted, and summary tables were created. Summary estimates of the clinical endpoints were then calculated with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies was examined with the Cochran Q I² statistic which can be defined as low (25% to 50%), moderate (50% to 75%), or high (> 75%). Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software CMA Version 3.0.

Results

A total of 9 studies including 3415 patients (1775 in EGFR-TK inhibitor treatment group while 1640 patients in platinum-based chemotherapy control group) were included in the study. All 9 studies were phase III randomized control clinical trials conducted to compare the safety profile of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC. Mean age was 61 years in both treatment and control groups. Further details on study and participant characteristics and safety profile including AEs are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. No evidence of publication bias was found.

Rash developed in 45.8% of patients in the treatment group receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors vs only 5.6% of patients in the control group receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall RR of 7.38 with the 95% CI noted, which was statistically significant, confirming higher rash event rates in patients receiving EGFR-TK inhibitors for their advanced NSCLC (Figure 2).

Diarrhea occurred in 33.6% of patients in the mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors treatment group vs 13.5% of patients in the control group receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall RR of 2.63 and 95% CI was noted, which was statistically significant, confirming higher diarrheal rates in patients receiving EGFR-TK inhibitors for their advanced NSCLC (Figure 3).

Discussion

Despite the advancement in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC, lung cancer stays as most common cause of cancer-related death in North America and European countries, as patients usually have an advanced disease at the time of diagnosis.³ In the past, platinum-based chemotherapy remained the standard of care for most of the patients affected with advanced NSCLC, but the higher recurrence rate and increase in frequency and intensity of AEs with platinum-based chemotherapy led to the development of targeted therapy for NSCLC, one of which includes mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors, including erlotinib, gefitinib, dacomitinib, lapatinib, and osimertinib.⁴

Smoking is the most common reversible risk factor associated with lung cancer. The EURTAC trial was the first perspective study in this regard, which compared safety and efficacy of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors with platinum-based chemotherapy. Results analyzed in this study were in favor of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors except in the group of former smokers.⁵ On the contrary, the OPTIMAL trial showed results in favor of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors both in active and former smokers; this trial also confirmed the efficacy of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in European and Asian populations, confirming the rationale for routine testing of EGFR mutation in all the patients being diagnosed with advanced NSCLC.⁶ Similarly, osimertinib is one of the most recent mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors developed for the treatment of advanced NSCLC in patients with EGFR-positive receptors.

According to the FLAURA trial, patients receiving osimertinib showed significantly longer progression-free survival compared with platinum-based chemotherapy and early mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors. Median progression-free survival was noted to be 18.9 months, which showed 54% lower risk of disease progression in the treatment group receiving osimertinib.⁷ The ARCHER study emphasized a significant improvement in overall survival as well as progression-free survival among a patient population receiving dacomitinib compared with platinum-based chemotherapy.^8,9

Being a potent targeted therapy, mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors do come with some AEs including diarrhea, which was seen in 33.6% of the patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in our study vs 53% in the chemotherapy group, as was observed in the study conducted by Pless and colleagues.¹⁰ Similarly, only 16.5% of patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors developed nausea compared with 66% being observed in patients receiving chemotherapy. Correspondingly, only a small fraction of patients (9.7%) receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors developed leucopenia, which was 10 times less reported in mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors compared with patients receiving chemotherapy having a percentage of 100%. A similar trend was reported for neutropenia and anemia in mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors with an incidence of 6.1% and 8.7%, compared with the platinum-based chemotherapy group in which the incidence was found to be 80% and 100%, respectively. It was concluded that platinum-based chemotherapy had played a vital role in the treatment of advanced NSCLC but at an expense of serious and severe AEs which led to discontinuation or withdrawal of treatment, leading to relapse and recurrence of lung cancer.^10,11

Zhong and colleagues conducted a phase 2 randomized clinical trial comparing mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors with platinum-based chemotherapy. They concluded that in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, incidence of rash, vomiting, anorexia, neutropenia, and nausea were 29.4%, 47%, 41.2%, 55.8%, and 32.4% compared with 45.8%, 11%, 21.3%, 6.1%, and 16.5%, respectively, reported in patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors for their advanced NSCLC.¹²

Another study was conducted in 2019 by Noronha and colleagues to determine the impact of platinum-based chemotherapy combined with gefitinib on patients with advanced NSCLC.¹³ They concluded that 70% of the patients receiving combination treatment developed rash, which was significantly higher compared with 45.8% patients receiving the mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors alone in our study. Also, 56% of patients receiving combination therapy developed diarrhea vs 33.6% of patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors only. Similarly, 96% of patients in the combination therapy group developed some degree of anemia compared with only 8.7% patients in the mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors group included in our study. In the same way, neutropenia was observed in 55% of patients receiving combination therapy vs 6.1% in patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors solely. They concluded that mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy increase the incidence of AEs of chemotherapy by many folds.^13,14

Kato and colleagues conducted a study to determine the impact on AEs when erlotinib was combined with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors like bevacizumab, they stated that 98.7% of patient in combination therapy developed rash, the incidence of which was only 45.8% in patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors as was observed in our study. Similar trends were noticed with other AEs, including diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and elevated liver enzymes.¹⁵

Conclusions

Our study focused on the safety profile of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors vs platinum-based chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors are safer than platinum-based chemotherapy when compared for nausea, leucopenia, fatigue, neutropenia, anorexia, anemia, cough, vomiting, and fever. On the other end, mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors cause slightly higher AEs, including rash, diarrhea, elevated AST and ALT levels, and stomatitis. However, considering that the development of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors laid a foundation of targeted therapy, we recommend continuing using mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC especially in patients having mutant EGFR receptors. AEs caused by mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors are significant but are usually tolerable and can be avoided by reducing the dosage of it with each cycle or by skipping or delaying the dose until the patient is symptomatic.

Lung cancer has been the leading cause of cancer-related mortality for decades. It is also predicted to remain as the leading cause of cancer-related mortality through 2030.¹ Platinum-based chemotherapy, including carboplatin and paclitaxel, was introduced 3 decades ago and revolutionized the management of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A more recent advancement has been mutant epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase (EGFR-TK) inhibitors.¹ EGFR is a transmembrane protein that functions by transducing essential growth factor signaling from the extracellular milieu to the cell. As 60% of the advanced NSCLC expresses this receptor, blocking the mutant EGFR receptor was a groundbreaking development in the management of advanced NSCLC.² Development of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors has revolutionized the management of advanced NSCLC. This study was conducted to determine the safety profile of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in the management of advanced NSCLC.

Methods 

This meta-analysis was conducted according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and reported as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The findings are summarized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). Two authors (MZ and MM) performed a systematic literature search using databases such as MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library using the medical search terms and their respective entry words with the following search strategy: safety, “mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors,” advanced, “non–small cell,” “lung cancer,” “adverse effect,” and literature. Additionally, unpublished trials were identified from clinicaltrials.gov, and references of all pertinent articles were also scrutinized to ensure the inclusion of all relevant studies. The search was completed on June 1, 2021, and we only included studies available in English. Two authors (MM and MZ) independently screened the search results in a 2-step process based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. First, 890 articles were evaluated for relevance on title and abstract level, followed by full-text screening of the final list of 140 articles. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or third-party review, and a total of 9 articles were included in the study.

The following eligibility criteria were used: original articles reporting adverse effects (AEs) of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC compared with control groups receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. All the patients included in the study had an EGFR mutation but randomly assigned to either treatment or control group. All articles with subjective data on mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors AEs in patients with advanced NSCLC compared with control groups receiving platinum-based chemotherapy were included in the analysis. Only 9 articles qualified the aforementioned selection criteria for eligibility. All qualifying studies were nationwide inpatient or pooled clinical trials data. The reasons for exclusion of the other 71 articles were irrelevant (n = 31), duplicate (n = 13), reviews (n = 14), and poor data reporting (n = 12). Out of the 9 included studies, 9 studies showed correlation of AEs, including rash, diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue. Seven studies showed correlation of AEs including neutropenia, anorexia, and vomiting. Six studies showed correlation of anemia, cough, and stomatitis. Five studies showed correlation of elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and leucopenia. Four studies showed correlation of fever between mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy.

The primary endpoints were reported AEs including rash, diarrhea, elevated ALT, elevated AST, stomatitis, nausea, leucopenia, fatigue, neutropenia, anorexia, anemia, cough, vomiting, and fever, respectively. Data on baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were then extracted, and summary tables were created. Summary estimates of the clinical endpoints were then calculated with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies was examined with the Cochran Q I² statistic which can be defined as low (25% to 50%), moderate (50% to 75%), or high (> 75%). Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software CMA Version 3.0.

Results

A total of 9 studies including 3415 patients (1775 in EGFR-TK inhibitor treatment group while 1640 patients in platinum-based chemotherapy control group) were included in the study. All 9 studies were phase III randomized control clinical trials conducted to compare the safety profile of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC. Mean age was 61 years in both treatment and control groups. Further details on study and participant characteristics and safety profile including AEs are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. No evidence of publication bias was found.

Rash developed in 45.8% of patients in the treatment group receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors vs only 5.6% of patients in the control group receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall RR of 7.38 with the 95% CI noted, which was statistically significant, confirming higher rash event rates in patients receiving EGFR-TK inhibitors for their advanced NSCLC (Figure 2).

Diarrhea occurred in 33.6% of patients in the mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors treatment group vs 13.5% of patients in the control group receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall RR of 2.63 and 95% CI was noted, which was statistically significant, confirming higher diarrheal rates in patients receiving EGFR-TK inhibitors for their advanced NSCLC (Figure 3).

Discussion

Despite the advancement in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC, lung cancer stays as most common cause of cancer-related death in North America and European countries, as patients usually have an advanced disease at the time of diagnosis.³ In the past, platinum-based chemotherapy remained the standard of care for most of the patients affected with advanced NSCLC, but the higher recurrence rate and increase in frequency and intensity of AEs with platinum-based chemotherapy led to the development of targeted therapy for NSCLC, one of which includes mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors, including erlotinib, gefitinib, dacomitinib, lapatinib, and osimertinib.⁴

Smoking is the most common reversible risk factor associated with lung cancer. The EURTAC trial was the first perspective study in this regard, which compared safety and efficacy of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors with platinum-based chemotherapy. Results analyzed in this study were in favor of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors except in the group of former smokers.⁵ On the contrary, the OPTIMAL trial showed results in favor of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors both in active and former smokers; this trial also confirmed the efficacy of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in European and Asian populations, confirming the rationale for routine testing of EGFR mutation in all the patients being diagnosed with advanced NSCLC.⁶ Similarly, osimertinib is one of the most recent mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors developed for the treatment of advanced NSCLC in patients with EGFR-positive receptors.

According to the FLAURA trial, patients receiving osimertinib showed significantly longer progression-free survival compared with platinum-based chemotherapy and early mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors. Median progression-free survival was noted to be 18.9 months, which showed 54% lower risk of disease progression in the treatment group receiving osimertinib.⁷ The ARCHER study emphasized a significant improvement in overall survival as well as progression-free survival among a patient population receiving dacomitinib compared with platinum-based chemotherapy.^8,9

Being a potent targeted therapy, mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors do come with some AEs including diarrhea, which was seen in 33.6% of the patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in our study vs 53% in the chemotherapy group, as was observed in the study conducted by Pless and colleagues.¹⁰ Similarly, only 16.5% of patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors developed nausea compared with 66% being observed in patients receiving chemotherapy. Correspondingly, only a small fraction of patients (9.7%) receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors developed leucopenia, which was 10 times less reported in mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors compared with patients receiving chemotherapy having a percentage of 100%. A similar trend was reported for neutropenia and anemia in mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors with an incidence of 6.1% and 8.7%, compared with the platinum-based chemotherapy group in which the incidence was found to be 80% and 100%, respectively. It was concluded that platinum-based chemotherapy had played a vital role in the treatment of advanced NSCLC but at an expense of serious and severe AEs which led to discontinuation or withdrawal of treatment, leading to relapse and recurrence of lung cancer.^10,11

Zhong and colleagues conducted a phase 2 randomized clinical trial comparing mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors with platinum-based chemotherapy. They concluded that in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, incidence of rash, vomiting, anorexia, neutropenia, and nausea were 29.4%, 47%, 41.2%, 55.8%, and 32.4% compared with 45.8%, 11%, 21.3%, 6.1%, and 16.5%, respectively, reported in patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors for their advanced NSCLC.¹²

Another study was conducted in 2019 by Noronha and colleagues to determine the impact of platinum-based chemotherapy combined with gefitinib on patients with advanced NSCLC.¹³ They concluded that 70% of the patients receiving combination treatment developed rash, which was significantly higher compared with 45.8% patients receiving the mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors alone in our study. Also, 56% of patients receiving combination therapy developed diarrhea vs 33.6% of patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors only. Similarly, 96% of patients in the combination therapy group developed some degree of anemia compared with only 8.7% patients in the mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors group included in our study. In the same way, neutropenia was observed in 55% of patients receiving combination therapy vs 6.1% in patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors solely. They concluded that mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy increase the incidence of AEs of chemotherapy by many folds.^13,14

Kato and colleagues conducted a study to determine the impact on AEs when erlotinib was combined with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors like bevacizumab, they stated that 98.7% of patient in combination therapy developed rash, the incidence of which was only 45.8% in patients receiving mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors as was observed in our study. Similar trends were noticed with other AEs, including diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and elevated liver enzymes.¹⁵

Conclusions

Our study focused on the safety profile of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors vs platinum-based chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors are safer than platinum-based chemotherapy when compared for nausea, leucopenia, fatigue, neutropenia, anorexia, anemia, cough, vomiting, and fever. On the other end, mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors cause slightly higher AEs, including rash, diarrhea, elevated AST and ALT levels, and stomatitis. However, considering that the development of mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors laid a foundation of targeted therapy, we recommend continuing using mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC especially in patients having mutant EGFR receptors. AEs caused by mutant EGFR-TK inhibitors are significant but are usually tolerable and can be avoided by reducing the dosage of it with each cycle or by skipping or delaying the dose until the patient is symptomatic.

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Fewer than 1 in 3 people infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) begin receiving treatment within a year of their diagnosis, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although HCV infection can be cured in more than 95% of patients with safe, oral medication, many barriers prevent people from receiving the care they need, experts say. These include insurance restrictions and the need for specialist visits.

“If we are going to make an impact against hepatitis C, we need to connect more people to treatments and reduce disparities of access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Carolyn Wester, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, during an Aug. 9 press call. “People shouldn’t have to jump over hurdles to access lifesaving treatments.”

The CDC report was published  in Vital Signs.

An estimated 2.2 million Americans are living with HCV infection. The most recent data indicate that new infections increased more than threefold from 2011 to 2019. HCV transmission usually occurs through contact with the blood of an infected person. Today, most people become infected with the virus by sharing needles, syringes, and other equipment used to inject drugs, according to the CDC.

The researchers used a nationwide administrative claims database to identify more than 47,600 adults diagnosed with HCV infection from Jan. 30, 2019 through Oct. 31, 2020. Most patients (79%) were Medicaid recipients, 7% were Medicare patients, and 14% had private insurance. CDC researchers found that just 23% of Medicaid recipients, 28% of Medicare patients, and 35% of patients with private insurance began receiving direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) within 360 days of receiving a positive HCV test result. Of those who did receive treatment, most (from 75% to 84%) began receiving treatment within 180 days of their diagnosis.

Among people on Medicaid plans, patients who lived in states with treatment restrictions were 23% less likely to receive timely treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.81), compared with those living in states with no restrictions. Medicaid patients who were Black or of another race other than White were also less likely than White patients to be treated for HCV within the same year as their diagnosis. The lowest rates of treatment were among adults younger than 40 years, regardless of insurance type. This age group had the highest rates of new infections.

Actual treatment percentages may be even smaller than the number captured in this study, because the study included patients with continuous insurance coverage, Dr. Wester said, “so in many ways, [these] are the individuals who are set up to have the best access to care and treatment.”

Dr. Wester mentioned several steps that could improve access to DAAs for patients with HCV infection:

• Provide treatment outside of specialist offices, such as primary care and community clinics, substance use treatment centers, and syringe services programs.
• Increase the number of primary care providers offering hepatitis C treatment.
• Provide treatment in as few visits as possible.
• Eliminate restrictions by insurance providers on treatment.

A ‘health injustice’

While DAA treatments are effective, they are also expensive. Generic medications cost around $24,000 for a 12-week course, and some brand-name drugs are estimated to cost more than three times that amount. Many insurance companies, therefore, have treatment restrictions in place, including the following:

• There must be evidence of liver fibrosis for a patient to be treated.
• The doctor prescribing treatment must be a liver specialist or an infectious disease specialist.
• The patient must meet sobriety requirements.
• Treatment requires preauthorization approval from insurance carriers.

These criteria prevent patients from getting the care that they need, said Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, during the press call. “Restricting access to hepatitis C treatment turns an infectious disease into a health injustice,” he added.

Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia, MBBS, MPH, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized the importance of removing barriers to HCV treatment and expanding HCV care out of specialist offices. She noted that treatment for HCV infection should begin immediately after a patient’s diagnosis. Previously, guidelines recommended waiting 6 months from the time a patient was diagnosed with HCV to begin treatment to see whether the patient’s body could clear the infection on its own. Now, guidelines recommend that after a diagnosis of acute HCV, “HCV treatment should be initiated without awaiting spontaneous resolution.” But some insurance companies still ask for evidence that a patient has been infected for at least 6 months before approving therapy, Dr. Falade-Nwulia noted.

“We have a system that has so many structural barriers for patients who we know already have so many social determinants of health working against them to access any health care,” she said. “I think it’s doubly devastating that patients that can actually get to a provider and get a prescription may still not have access to [the medication] because of structural barriers, such as restrictions based on a need to prove chronicity.”

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

Fewer than 1 in 3 people infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) begin receiving treatment within a year of their diagnosis, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although HCV infection can be cured in more than 95% of patients with safe, oral medication, many barriers prevent people from receiving the care they need, experts say. These include insurance restrictions and the need for specialist visits.

“If we are going to make an impact against hepatitis C, we need to connect more people to treatments and reduce disparities of access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Carolyn Wester, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, during an Aug. 9 press call. “People shouldn’t have to jump over hurdles to access lifesaving treatments.”

The CDC report was published  in Vital Signs.

An estimated 2.2 million Americans are living with HCV infection. The most recent data indicate that new infections increased more than threefold from 2011 to 2019. HCV transmission usually occurs through contact with the blood of an infected person. Today, most people become infected with the virus by sharing needles, syringes, and other equipment used to inject drugs, according to the CDC.

The researchers used a nationwide administrative claims database to identify more than 47,600 adults diagnosed with HCV infection from Jan. 30, 2019 through Oct. 31, 2020. Most patients (79%) were Medicaid recipients, 7% were Medicare patients, and 14% had private insurance. CDC researchers found that just 23% of Medicaid recipients, 28% of Medicare patients, and 35% of patients with private insurance began receiving direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) within 360 days of receiving a positive HCV test result. Of those who did receive treatment, most (from 75% to 84%) began receiving treatment within 180 days of their diagnosis.

Among people on Medicaid plans, patients who lived in states with treatment restrictions were 23% less likely to receive timely treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.81), compared with those living in states with no restrictions. Medicaid patients who were Black or of another race other than White were also less likely than White patients to be treated for HCV within the same year as their diagnosis. The lowest rates of treatment were among adults younger than 40 years, regardless of insurance type. This age group had the highest rates of new infections.

Actual treatment percentages may be even smaller than the number captured in this study, because the study included patients with continuous insurance coverage, Dr. Wester said, “so in many ways, [these] are the individuals who are set up to have the best access to care and treatment.”

Dr. Wester mentioned several steps that could improve access to DAAs for patients with HCV infection:

• Provide treatment outside of specialist offices, such as primary care and community clinics, substance use treatment centers, and syringe services programs.
• Increase the number of primary care providers offering hepatitis C treatment.
• Provide treatment in as few visits as possible.
• Eliminate restrictions by insurance providers on treatment.

A ‘health injustice’

While DAA treatments are effective, they are also expensive. Generic medications cost around $24,000 for a 12-week course, and some brand-name drugs are estimated to cost more than three times that amount. Many insurance companies, therefore, have treatment restrictions in place, including the following:

• There must be evidence of liver fibrosis for a patient to be treated.
• The doctor prescribing treatment must be a liver specialist or an infectious disease specialist.
• The patient must meet sobriety requirements.
• Treatment requires preauthorization approval from insurance carriers.

These criteria prevent patients from getting the care that they need, said Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, during the press call. “Restricting access to hepatitis C treatment turns an infectious disease into a health injustice,” he added.

Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia, MBBS, MPH, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized the importance of removing barriers to HCV treatment and expanding HCV care out of specialist offices. She noted that treatment for HCV infection should begin immediately after a patient’s diagnosis. Previously, guidelines recommended waiting 6 months from the time a patient was diagnosed with HCV to begin treatment to see whether the patient’s body could clear the infection on its own. Now, guidelines recommend that after a diagnosis of acute HCV, “HCV treatment should be initiated without awaiting spontaneous resolution.” But some insurance companies still ask for evidence that a patient has been infected for at least 6 months before approving therapy, Dr. Falade-Nwulia noted.

“We have a system that has so many structural barriers for patients who we know already have so many social determinants of health working against them to access any health care,” she said. “I think it’s doubly devastating that patients that can actually get to a provider and get a prescription may still not have access to [the medication] because of structural barriers, such as restrictions based on a need to prove chronicity.”

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

Fewer than 1 in 3 people infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) begin receiving treatment within a year of their diagnosis, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although HCV infection can be cured in more than 95% of patients with safe, oral medication, many barriers prevent people from receiving the care they need, experts say. These include insurance restrictions and the need for specialist visits.

“If we are going to make an impact against hepatitis C, we need to connect more people to treatments and reduce disparities of access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Carolyn Wester, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, during an Aug. 9 press call. “People shouldn’t have to jump over hurdles to access lifesaving treatments.”

The CDC report was published  in Vital Signs.

An estimated 2.2 million Americans are living with HCV infection. The most recent data indicate that new infections increased more than threefold from 2011 to 2019. HCV transmission usually occurs through contact with the blood of an infected person. Today, most people become infected with the virus by sharing needles, syringes, and other equipment used to inject drugs, according to the CDC.

The researchers used a nationwide administrative claims database to identify more than 47,600 adults diagnosed with HCV infection from Jan. 30, 2019 through Oct. 31, 2020. Most patients (79%) were Medicaid recipients, 7% were Medicare patients, and 14% had private insurance. CDC researchers found that just 23% of Medicaid recipients, 28% of Medicare patients, and 35% of patients with private insurance began receiving direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) within 360 days of receiving a positive HCV test result. Of those who did receive treatment, most (from 75% to 84%) began receiving treatment within 180 days of their diagnosis.

Among people on Medicaid plans, patients who lived in states with treatment restrictions were 23% less likely to receive timely treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.81), compared with those living in states with no restrictions. Medicaid patients who were Black or of another race other than White were also less likely than White patients to be treated for HCV within the same year as their diagnosis. The lowest rates of treatment were among adults younger than 40 years, regardless of insurance type. This age group had the highest rates of new infections.

Actual treatment percentages may be even smaller than the number captured in this study, because the study included patients with continuous insurance coverage, Dr. Wester said, “so in many ways, [these] are the individuals who are set up to have the best access to care and treatment.”

Dr. Wester mentioned several steps that could improve access to DAAs for patients with HCV infection:

• Provide treatment outside of specialist offices, such as primary care and community clinics, substance use treatment centers, and syringe services programs.
• Increase the number of primary care providers offering hepatitis C treatment.
• Provide treatment in as few visits as possible.
• Eliminate restrictions by insurance providers on treatment.

A ‘health injustice’

While DAA treatments are effective, they are also expensive. Generic medications cost around $24,000 for a 12-week course, and some brand-name drugs are estimated to cost more than three times that amount. Many insurance companies, therefore, have treatment restrictions in place, including the following:

• There must be evidence of liver fibrosis for a patient to be treated.
• The doctor prescribing treatment must be a liver specialist or an infectious disease specialist.
• The patient must meet sobriety requirements.
• Treatment requires preauthorization approval from insurance carriers.

These criteria prevent patients from getting the care that they need, said Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, during the press call. “Restricting access to hepatitis C treatment turns an infectious disease into a health injustice,” he added.

Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia, MBBS, MPH, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized the importance of removing barriers to HCV treatment and expanding HCV care out of specialist offices. She noted that treatment for HCV infection should begin immediately after a patient’s diagnosis. Previously, guidelines recommended waiting 6 months from the time a patient was diagnosed with HCV to begin treatment to see whether the patient’s body could clear the infection on its own. Now, guidelines recommend that after a diagnosis of acute HCV, “HCV treatment should be initiated without awaiting spontaneous resolution.” But some insurance companies still ask for evidence that a patient has been infected for at least 6 months before approving therapy, Dr. Falade-Nwulia noted.

“We have a system that has so many structural barriers for patients who we know already have so many social determinants of health working against them to access any health care,” she said. “I think it’s doubly devastating that patients that can actually get to a provider and get a prescription may still not have access to [the medication] because of structural barriers, such as restrictions based on a need to prove chronicity.”

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