A series of sharp knocks on his driver’s side window startled Jason Burt awake.

It was the middle of the night on a Saturday in 2016. Burt was sleeping in his pickup truck in the parking lot of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in downtown Memphis, Tenn., where his 5-year-old daughter was being treated for brain cancer. He’d driven more than 500 miles from his home in Central Texas to visit her.

A St. Jude security guard peered into the truck and asked Burt what he was doing. Burt explained that his daughter and her mother, his ex-girlfriend, were staying in the hospital’s free patient housing. But St. Jude provides housing for only one parent. Burt, a school bus driver making $20,000 a year, told the guard he couldn’t afford a hotel. The guard let the exhausted father go back to sleep.

St. Jude would do no more to find him a place to stay.

“They were aware of the situation,” Burt said. “I didn’t push anything. I was just grateful she was getting treated and I was doing what I needed to do.”

St. Jude is the largest and most highly regarded health care charity in the country. Each year, the Memphis hospital’s fundraisers send out hundreds of millions of letters, many with heart-wrenching photographs of children left bald from battling cancer. Celebrities like Jennifer Aniston and Sofia Vergara sing the hospital’s praises in televised advertisements. This year, St. Jude’s fundraising reached outer space. The SpaceX Inspiration4 mission in September included a former St. Jude patient as a crew member.

Last year, St. Jude raised a record $2 billion. U.S. News & World Report ranked it the country’s 10th-best children’s cancer hospital, and St. Jude raised roughly as much as the nine hospitals ahead of it put together. It currently has $5.2 billion in reserves, a sum large enough to run the institution at current levels for the next four and a half years without a single additional donation.

St. Jude makes a unique promise as part of its fundraising: “Families never receive a bill from St. Jude for treatment, travel, housing or food – because all a family should worry about is helping their child live.”

But for many families, treatment at St. Jude does not relieve all the financial burdens they incur in getting care for their children, including housing, travel, and food costs that fall outside the hospital’s strict limits, a ProPublica investigation has found.

While families may not receive a bill from St. Jude, the hospital doesn’t cover what’s usually the biggest source of financial stress associated with childhood cancer: The loss of income as parents quit or take leave from jobs to be with their child during treatment. For many families, the consequence is missed payments for cars, utilities, and cellphones. Others face eviction or foreclosure because they can’t keep up with rent and mortgage payments.

Parents at St. Jude have exhausted savings and retirement accounts, borrowed from family and friends, or asked other charities for aid. ProPublica identified more than 100 St. Jude families seeking financial help through the online fundraiser GoFundMe, with half of the campaigns started in the past two years. We counted scores of other events like concerts and yard sales organized to help St. Jude families in need.

One family relied on a mixed martial arts fighter to help raise money for expenses like car repairs and cellphone bills, items that St. Jude would not cover. Another spent $10,000, originally saved to purchase a home, on costs related to treatment at St. Jude.

Only about half of the $7.3 billion St. Jude has received in contributions in the past five fiscal years went to the hospital’s research and caring for patients, according to its financial filings with the Internal Revenue Service. About 30% covered the cost of its fundraising operations, and the remaining 20%, or $1 of every $5 donated, increased its reserve fund.

Further, ProPublica found, a substantial portion of the cost for treatment is paid not by St. Jude but by families’ private insurance or by Medicaid, the government insurance program for low-income families. About 90% of patients are insured, bringing in more than $100 million in reimbursements for treatment a year. If a family shows up at St. Jude without insurance, a company hired by the charity helps them find it. St. Jude does cover copays and deductibles, an unusual benefit.

St. Jude spends about $500 million a year on patient services – a figure that includes all medical care and other assistance. Very little of what St. Jude raises from the public goes to pay for food, travel, and housing for families, the investigation found. Last year, it was 2% of the money raised, or nearly $40 million.

In written responses to ProPublica, lawyers for St. Jude and its fundraising arm, the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, or ALSAC, emphasized that countless families have benefited from the charity provided since the hospital opened its doors in 1962.

“ProPublica should be celebrating St. Jude and ALSAC for their commitment to finding cures, saving children’s lives, and optimizing patient outcomes,” one of their letters said.

It is unquestioned that St. Jude has helped thousands of children and their families over the decades. Patients have offered scores of testimonials about the hospital’s generosity and care.

“This often comes as a huge relief to families who often expect to sell all their belongings just so their children can get the medical care and treatment they need to save their lives,” the hospital’s lawyers wrote. “St. Jude and ALSAC understand that this arrangement cannot cover all financial obligations of all families, nor can St. Jude or ALSAC shield families from all the financial and emotional effects” of a child’s illness.

St. Jude said it discloses the limits of its aid to families on its website and in material provided to those whose children are admitted to the hospital. That includes the rule Burt ran into, that the hospital covers the travel and housing costs of only one caregiver and one patient. For many families, the daily food budget is capped at $50. In some cases, hotel stays en route are provided only if families travel more than 500 miles to get to St. Jude.

St. Jude said its assistance is “based on guidelines to ensure fairness and responsible use of donor funds” and on remaining compliant with a federal anti-kickback statute that makes it a criminal offense to offer something of value to induce a medical referral. St. Jude declined to explain how the law affects the amount or type of financial assistance it provides to families.

“St. Jude has never promised anyone – neither patients nor the public in general – that it can solve all financial problems,” the letter said.

When parents need additional financial help, St. Jude’s social workers often send them to smaller charities or in some cases suggest that they apply for government aid.

They refer many to the Andrew McDonough B+ Foundation, which gives more than $2.5 million a year in grants to thousands of families of pediatric cancer patients at hospitals across the country to help cover rent, utilities, and other urgent expenses.

Joe McDonough, the foundation’s founder and president, said St. Jude families have the same money problems as families of patients at other children’s hospitals, even though he said St. Jude’s marketing creates the public perception that it alleviates these burdens.

“People say to me, ‘Why are you helping St. Jude families?’ ” McDonough said. “Well, what happens when a family lives in Augusta, Georgia, and they’re being treated at St. Jude? They still have to pay the rent on their apartment back in Augusta, Georgia. They still have to make their car payment. And it’s not my position to say whether St. Jude should be paying for all those expenses or not. I’m just explaining that it’s not a totally free ride.”

The help St. Jude provides to families may soon be increasing.

After ProPublica provided St. Jude with the findings of its reporting, the hospital informed families of a dramatic expansion in the assistance it will give to parents and other relatives during their kids’ treatment in Memphis.

Among the most significant changes are increasing travel benefits to two parents instead of one and covering regular trips to Memphis for siblings and other loved ones. St. Jude’s letter to parents said the changes take effect Nov. 15.

That would’ve made a big difference for Burt.

Burt’s daughter, whom ProPublica is not identifying at her mother’s request, was originally diagnosed with cancer in early 2015, when doctors discovered a tumor pressing against her brain stem. She had successful emergency surgery to remove the mass at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, Texas. Medicaid and Dell Children’s covered the bill, but the family was still faced with the cost of her ongoing treatment.

“At that point I’m thinking: ‘What am I going to do? I guess I’m selling my house, whatever it takes,’” Burt recalled. “Honestly, that was probably a big deciding factor for St. Jude.”

St. Jude accepted Burt’s daughter into a clinical trial, and the family moved to the hospital’s patient housing in Memphis for several months. Both parents stopped working for a time, and people in their hometown raised cash to pay their bills.

Her cancer relapsed the following year with several new, inoperable brain tumors. Burt and his daughter’s mom broke up during that round of treatment, and financial problems piled up.

Burt said his credit score dropped so low that utility companies refused to set up service unless he first paid a deposit. One of the family’s cars was repossessed, he said. Burt’s 2005 Chevrolet Colorado pickup has 300,000 miles on it, many of them logged on trips from Texas to Memphis. When Burt’s daughter was at St. Jude for treatment or exams, he’d work all week, then visit on many weekends where he would spend Saturday night sleeping in the hospital parking lot.

He asked hospital officials if he could sleep in St. Jude’s housing, but they turned him down, he said.

Burt said he was happy with the care St. Jude provided. His daughter’s health is stable, he said, and brain scans taken during her September exam confirmed her two remaining tumors haven’t grown. But he’s still trying to recover financially.

“It’s five years now,” Burt said, “and I’m not completely caught up yet.”
 

A fundraising giant

St. Jude began with a fledgling entertainer praying for a career break.

When Danny Thomas, a comic and actor best known for the TV sitcom “Make Room for Daddy,” was struggling to earn a living in the late 1930s, the devout Roman Catholic went to church and asked for help from the patron saint of desperate cases, St. Jude Thaddeus. If he made it big, Thomas promised to build “a shrine where the poor and the helpless and the hopeless may come for comfort and aid,” according to a history published by ALSAC.

Within five years, Thomas became a star and worked to fulfill his promise by building a children’s hospital named after St. Jude and a fundraising organization to support it. Thomas, whose parents were Lebanese immigrants, recruited others who shared his Middle Eastern roots to help.

He used his fame to raise the hospital’s profile, appearing in ads for St. Jude and hosting fundraising events starring the likes of Elvis Presley and Sammy Davis Jr. Thomas’ daughter Marlo, herself a TV star, succeeded him in championing St. Jude.

Today, St. Jude is a specialty treatment and research center with about 5,700 employees and 73 beds. Other top children’s hospitals have more staff and beds, and they also treat more conditions.

Though St. Jude raises money across the world, most of its patients come from Tennessee and surrounding states. Patients from elsewhere are usually enrolled in clinical trials.

ALSAC, which handles St. Jude’s fundraising and investments, has 2,188 employees in Memphis and in 36 regional offices across the country. More than 400 of the fundraising arm’s employees are paid over $100,000, according to IRS filings. The charity takes in so much money each year that it regularly steers hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to reserve accounts, the filings show.

Overall, St. Jude’s reserve has grown by 58% over the past five fiscal years, during which it has added $1.9 billion to its investment accounts and shifted its portfolio toward financial products designed to generate bigger returns than stocks, bonds, and mutual funds traditionally deliver. The charity stowed more than a third of the new surplus, $688 million, in riskier private equity investments.

IRS rules do not limit the size of a nonprofit’s reserves, and experts on charitable finance differ on best practices.

St. Jude meets Better Business Bureau guidelines, which call for charities to maintain reserves of less than three times total expenses, but other experts expressed alarm that the hospital had accumulated such a large sum of money.

The size of the St. Jude reserve is “staggering,” said Laura Otten, the director of LaSalle University’s master program in nonprofit leadership. She said a typical reserve for a nonprofit the size of St. Jude is one to two years of expenses. Donors generally want to know their dollars are being put to work, she said.

The hospital said it needs a large reserve because its unique operating model relies on donations to fund annual operating costs. “[W]e are highly donor-dependent and subject to the economic driven vagaries of charitable giving,” the hospital said in a written response to ProPublica questions.

But the hospital’s reserve is already more than large enough to buffer against recessions and potential drops in donations, said Ge Bai, a professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University. “They should be spending the money as aggressively as they raise it, but they seem to be hoarding,” Bai said.

The hospital said it is also raising billions to fund the construction of new housing and research space, although its plans do not currently include spending any of the reserve on new facilities.

St. Jude’s reserves have ballooned at a time when researchers, oncologists, advocates, and families complain about a dearth of funding for pediatric cancer studies nationally.

Dozens of other children’s hospitals across the country have research divisions devoted to pediatric cancer and enroll their patients in clinical trials for new drugs and procedures. They pay for research staff and studies in part with donations from their local communities, often competing directly against St. Jude. ALSAC has regional offices in several U.S. cities with elite pediatric cancer centers of their own, including Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and Seattle.

Coury Shadyac, an ALSAC vice president and daughter of the organization’s CEO, Richard Shadyac Jr., oversees a team of 45 fundraisers along the West Coast “raising $300 million annually” for St. Jude, according to her LinkedIn profile. That’s $100 million more in donations than either Children’s Hospital Los Angeles or Seattle Children’s Hospital, two of the nation’s leading pediatric cancer institutions, received in fiscal year 2019, IRS disclosures show. But it’s only a small part of St. Jude’s fundraising haul.

ALSAC’s ubiquitous fundraising has led to concerns that it undercuts other hospitals’ campaigns. Some doctors interviewed by ProPublica said they have encouraged donors to give their money to hospitals closer to home.

David Clark, a pediatrician and former longtime chairperson of pediatrics at Albany Medical Center in New York, said St. Jude raises tens of thousands of dollars in his region that does little to benefit the children with cancer in his area since almost all are treated locally. ALSAC has a fundraising office located a few miles from Albany Medical.

“They think of every way they can to make money and the least amount of ways to spend it,” Clark said. “They deceive people into supporting something that is totally dishonest.”

Nearly all St. Jude solicitations feature the hospital’s patients – the children usually smiling and bald from treatment – along with the familiar promise that it never sends families a bill.

It’s a message that ALSAC has tested and researched to maximize donations. Donors appreciate the promise to never bill families, said Mary Kate Tolan, an ALSAC executive, in a podcast last year. She added that no parent should have to take out a second mortgage or lose their job because their child is being treated at St. Jude.

Alternative messaging to the no-bills promise did not “perform as well,” said Tolan, who develops emerging technologies for ALSAC. Tolan did not return requests for comment.
 

“Borrowing and begging”

Catherine Rainey thought she would be free of financial worry when her 2-year-old daughter Harlee was admitted to St. Jude last year.

“The first thing my dad said was: ‘Catherine, you have nothing to worry about. They raise billions of dollars. Anytime you have a problem, you tell them and they will take care of it,’ ” she said.

But like many families, the Raineys discovered that St. Jude’s charity came with limits on payments for expenses such as travel that could be bewildering.

Harlee ended up at St. Jude after first going to nearby Niswonger Children’s Hospital in Johnson City, Tenn., in October 2020. The doctors there discovered a cancerous mass attached to her right kidney. The hospital is a St. Jude affiliate, and the doctors recommended the toddler be treated in Memphis.

Rainey, a single mother of two young girls, had to leave her job as a nurse for months to be with Harlee at St. Jude. The loss of income quickly created problems. “My family, we don’t come from money,” she said. “We are not doctors and billionaires. We make it. That is it.”

St. Jude did provide food and housing on campus. But the hospital said it couldn’t help with the items that were causing Rainey to worry, including car payments, insurance, and cellphone bills.

Rainey’s boss set up a GoFundMe account to help make up some of her lost income. A small local charity, Kari’s Heart Foundation, also helped out by paying about $3,000 worth of phone bills and car payments, staving off repossession.

“It was just a bunch of borrowing and begging,” Rainey said of her experience while her daughter was treated in Memphis. “They acted like it was coming out of their own pocket.”

Harlee has checkups at St. Jude every three months that last about four days. The costs of travel to and from St. Jude put an additional strain on Rainey and Harlee. St. Jude is an eight-hour ride, without stops, from Rainey’s home in Appalachia, Va., a town of 1,432 people near the Kentucky border.

Rainey said her daughter generally can make it about two-thirds of the way, with frequent stops, before she has had enough. “When she is done, she is really done,” Rainey said. “She will scream, cry, and kick.”

In July, in advance of an August trip to Memphis, Rainey called the patient services department at St. Jude to see whether they could help pay for a hotel to break up the travel day — an expense Rainey said she could not afford.

To qualify for a hotel reimbursement, Rainey said, St. Jude told her she had to live more than 500 miles from Memphis. The ride from her home to the hospital is 530 miles (a measurement ProPublica confirmed with mapping tools). However, Rainey said, St. Jude told her it measured the trip from city limit to city limit and came up with a distance of 491 miles. Even using that metric, the distance is still more than 500 miles, ProPublica found.

When she challenged the hospital’s stance, Rainey said she was berated by a patient services representative.

“I was feeling pissed off, and I was crying,” Rainey said of the interaction. “You give up your whole life for your child, and they tell you don’t worry about anything, we will cover this and then they tell you to just push through the drive.”

Rainey did what she could to make the trip go smoothly: She configured a small table to extend across her daughter’s car seat, so Harlee could play with the coloring books, markers, and Play-Doh bought for the ride. She packed snacks and a cooler full of drinks. Since Harlee was still potty training, she brought extra towels and clothes for accidents. The final step was handing Harlee her Baby Yoda doll once she settled into her car seat. Rainey had sewed a port in the doll’s chest to mirror the one Harlee has in hers.

About three hours from Memphis, Harlee was crying inconsolably. Rainey pulled off the interstate and stopped at the first hotel she could find. She later learned it had been described in online reviews as “awful,” a “nightmare,” “disgusting,” and “horrible.”

“I didn’t know the area,” she said. “The hotel was garbage. It just made it worse.”

The drive home also required a hotel stop, but this time Rainey was able to find one that was cleaner. A $100 donation from a local charity helped to offset the cost.

Among the changes St. Jude is making is to reimburse families like Rainey’s, who live more than 400 miles from the hospital, for an overnight stay at a hotel when making the trip to Memphis.

Rainey said she was called by a St. Jude representative after ProPublica asked about her situation and was told the hospital would pay for her past hotel stays when traveling back and forth to St. Jude. The representative, Rainey said, also told her the hospital discovered the way it had been measuring mileage was inaccurate.

“I am not the only one,” Rainey said. “There are others. They should reimburse all the families.”

The anxiety of unpaid bills piling up, combined with caring for a child undergoing chemotherapy or radiation, takes a severe toll on parents and guardians, said Christopher Hope, a UPS driver who started a Memphis-based foundation after meeting St. Jude parents who were in financial crisis.

Hope’s small charity spent $12,000 last year to help families. Parents in St. Jude social media groups often refer families in need to it. The charity has helped families cover mortgage and car payments.

“I never knew anything about this until hearing about it from families,” Hope said. “All we hear is about kids and treatment, not the other side of it.”
 

“It’s not free”

In addition to charities like Hope’s, St. Jude families have repeatedly turned to fundraising sites and networks of their relatives, friends, and neighbors to help cover basic expenses while unable to work during their children’s treatment. Parents’ requests on fundraising sites are sometimes desperate pleas.

In January 2017, one father in North Carolina said he’d had to abandon a business venture to take time for his son to receive care at St. Jude. His income had plummeted. He asked friends to give as little as $10 to “at least make it possible to survive.”

This year, a mother in Memphis whose 1-year-old son receives care at St. Jude for sickle cell disorder ran out of medical leave and couldn’t work her shifts at a clothing distribution center. After the child had a flare-up in July requiring several days of treatment at the hospital, she said she returned home to find her power shut off. Sitting in a dark apartment, unable to pay her utility bills, she set up a GoFundMe campaign. She received less than $20 through the site; her relatives eventually pooled $350 to get her electricity restored.

Even parents with stable jobs and private health insurance often take on debt and need outside help.

When Taylr and Treg Murphy’s 17-year-old son Peyton was diagnosed with cancer and needed monthslong treatment at St. Jude in 2017, the entire family – mom, dad, sister, and brother – went with him, traveling from their home in Lafayette, La., to Memphis. Treg took a leave from his job at an oil mining company and Taylr, who works at her mother’s bakery, did the same.

“We knew that it was going to be a collective team effort,” Treg said. “Without even a discussion, we figured that if Peyton’s got to go for the surgery, we’re all going.”

Peyton had an enormous tumor that had grown out of his right femur and was crowding his knee. Rounds of chemotherapy appeared to have killed osteosarcoma cells elsewhere in his body. But he needed to undergo a procedure called limb-sparing surgery that would require weeks of recovery time at the hospital.

The hospital agreed to allow all five family members to stay for free at St. Jude if they bunked together in a single room. It assigned them a spot in Tri Delta Place, its hotel-like short-term patient residence on the campus. Tri Delta is set up for visits of up to seven days, according to the hospital’s guide for volunteers, but the Murphys were there for almost 50.

Taylr said the unit at Tri Delta had no oven or stove and St. Jude provided no grocery money, instead allotting them a $50-per-day credit at the hospital cafeteria, Kay Kafe – not enough to feed the family of five. As the weeks wore on, the Murphys split grilled cheese sandwiches and paid for food out of pocket.

After ProPublica asked about the hospital’s food allowances, St. Jude said it would increase them as part of the changes scheduled to go into effect this month. The hospital switched from a $50-a-day cap per family to providing $25 a day to each family member. For a family of four, that would double the food benefit. A weekly stipend given to families in long-term housing was increased to $150 from $125.

For the Murphys, it was the loss of their work income, more than out-of-pocket expenses, that put them into a financial hole as Peyton’s treatment went on. Treg’s employer couldn’t pay him during his long absences.

Fearful of being evicted or having their car repossessed, Taylr said she asked a St. Jude social worker for assistance. The social worker helped her apply for grants from other charities. Taylr said the B+ Foundation paid their rent one month, which ensured they’d have a home to return to.

In the years since his initial treatment, Peyton has gone back to St. Jude repeatedly for exams and surgeries to remove malignant growths in his lungs. Taylr and Treg have missed more work to bring Peyton to Memphis, costing them thousands of dollars more in income.

By the start of this year, Taylr and Treg said they were about $20,000 in debt and panicking. Dustin Poirier, a former UFC champion from their hometown, heard from a friend about Peyton and the family’s financial trouble. He donated $10,000 to them from his personal charity and in May hosted a local fundraiser that collected enough to pay off their credit cards.

St. Jude families sometimes commiserate about money problems with each other, Taylr said, but few are aware of the extent of the hospital’s unspent resources. The Murphys said they didn’t know St. Jude has more than $5 billion in reserve or that it continues to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus donations each year.

“That’s just insane,” Taylr said. “That just blows my mind. When we first started getting treated, people would be like, ‘Oh, St. Jude covers everything, that’s awesome.’ That’s not how it works. People don’t understand that. I truly didn’t understand before I got into St. Jude.”

Taylr and Treg said the doctors at St. Jude are “amazing” and they’re grateful for their son’s care. But they bristled at the assumption that it was covered by the hospital’s charity. The family’s insurance paid a substantial part of the bills.

“It’s not free,” Taylr said. “My husband works very hard for the insurance we have – and they are billed.” The Murphys pay $12,000 in health insurance premiums each year.

Their struggle continues. Peyton’s cancer has relapsed, and he’s making regular trips with his mom or dad back to St. Jude for chemotherapy. The family is again applying for help from other charities.
 

Wiped out savings

The costs associated with care at St. Jude caused at least one family to stop going to Memphis altogether.

Last winter, Kelly Edwards was excitedly searching through Tulsa real estate listings after years of diligently saving $10,000 for a down payment on a house. She craved a permanent home for herself and the two young brothers she had taken in five years earlier at the behest of a family friend. She hoped to adopt the boys, now 13 and 9, who call her mom.

In February, the older boy, DJ, was lethargic and uninterested in his schoolwork. After several doctor visits, he was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia at a Tulsa hospital. The cancer, referred to as ALL, is the most common type among children, with survival rates that exceed 90%. A day after his diagnosis, DJ and Edwards were driving six hours to Memphis for treatment at St. Jude, which is affiliated with the Oklahoma hospital.

The pair stayed for free at an independently operated Ronald McDonald House near St. Jude, and a weekly stipend from the hospital helped to pay for meals – aid that Edwards said was a blessing. DJ had health insurance through the Oklahoma Medicaid program.

But as with the Murphys, lost income soon put Edwards’ family into financial jeopardy. She works as a supervisor for a company that delivers packages for Amazon. After she used up two weeks of paid time off, she stopped getting paychecks. The bills, however, kept coming: rent, car payments, utilities. To that was added the $250 a week she paid a friend to stay with DJ’s younger brother and her two dogs in Tulsa.

Within four months, her house savings were wiped out. Edwards said she told her St. Jude social worker about her financial woes but got no additional help.

One of Edwards’ adult daughters started a GoFundMe campaign to help, bringing in just over $3,000. Edwards said she appreciated the aid but believes donations were kept low by the widespread perception that St. Jude families don’t have financial problems.

“Everyone hears that everything is taken care of by St. Jude,” she said. “That is not true, but everyone has that mentality.” She said someone she knew asked her “what is that money going for if St. Jude’s is paying for everything?”

DJ was scheduled to go back to St. Jude for three weeks of treatment in August, but Edwards decided she simply couldn’t afford it. “I don’t have the money to go back and forth,” she said. She worked with DJ’s local doctors and found that the hospital near her home in Tulsa could provide the same treatment he was scheduled to get in Tennessee.

The local treatment allowed her to continue working some shifts and to be at home with both of her boys. DJ is also happier when he is home, Edwards said.

Edwards and the boys are now living in a small house her brother owns just outside Tulsa. Late on a recent weekday afternoon, DJ slowly shuffled into the living room, exhausted from a day of chemotherapy treatment.

He is in the midst of a 20-week regimen where he receives the cancer-killing drugs every other day, just one phase of a nearly three-year treatment plan. He wore an orange knit hat, T-shirt, and shorts. He rubbed his eyes before asking a visitor, “How is your day going?” He smiled at the positive response. When he heard the family was eating steak for dinner, he eagerly jumped up to start helping in the kitchen. After they moved in, Edwards hung family portraits on the walls to make it feel homier. She doesn’t expect they will be moving again any time soon.

The dream of buying a home of their own is gone.

Former ProPublica reporter Marshall Allen contributed reporting. Kirsten Berg contributed research.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A series of sharp knocks on his driver’s side window startled Jason Burt awake.

It was the middle of the night on a Saturday in 2016. Burt was sleeping in his pickup truck in the parking lot of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in downtown Memphis, Tenn., where his 5-year-old daughter was being treated for brain cancer. He’d driven more than 500 miles from his home in Central Texas to visit her.

A St. Jude security guard peered into the truck and asked Burt what he was doing. Burt explained that his daughter and her mother, his ex-girlfriend, were staying in the hospital’s free patient housing. But St. Jude provides housing for only one parent. Burt, a school bus driver making $20,000 a year, told the guard he couldn’t afford a hotel. The guard let the exhausted father go back to sleep.

St. Jude would do no more to find him a place to stay.

“They were aware of the situation,” Burt said. “I didn’t push anything. I was just grateful she was getting treated and I was doing what I needed to do.”

St. Jude is the largest and most highly regarded health care charity in the country. Each year, the Memphis hospital’s fundraisers send out hundreds of millions of letters, many with heart-wrenching photographs of children left bald from battling cancer. Celebrities like Jennifer Aniston and Sofia Vergara sing the hospital’s praises in televised advertisements. This year, St. Jude’s fundraising reached outer space. The SpaceX Inspiration4 mission in September included a former St. Jude patient as a crew member.

Last year, St. Jude raised a record $2 billion. U.S. News & World Report ranked it the country’s 10th-best children’s cancer hospital, and St. Jude raised roughly as much as the nine hospitals ahead of it put together. It currently has $5.2 billion in reserves, a sum large enough to run the institution at current levels for the next four and a half years without a single additional donation.

St. Jude makes a unique promise as part of its fundraising: “Families never receive a bill from St. Jude for treatment, travel, housing or food – because all a family should worry about is helping their child live.”

But for many families, treatment at St. Jude does not relieve all the financial burdens they incur in getting care for their children, including housing, travel, and food costs that fall outside the hospital’s strict limits, a ProPublica investigation has found.

While families may not receive a bill from St. Jude, the hospital doesn’t cover what’s usually the biggest source of financial stress associated with childhood cancer: The loss of income as parents quit or take leave from jobs to be with their child during treatment. For many families, the consequence is missed payments for cars, utilities, and cellphones. Others face eviction or foreclosure because they can’t keep up with rent and mortgage payments.

Parents at St. Jude have exhausted savings and retirement accounts, borrowed from family and friends, or asked other charities for aid. ProPublica identified more than 100 St. Jude families seeking financial help through the online fundraiser GoFundMe, with half of the campaigns started in the past two years. We counted scores of other events like concerts and yard sales organized to help St. Jude families in need.

One family relied on a mixed martial arts fighter to help raise money for expenses like car repairs and cellphone bills, items that St. Jude would not cover. Another spent $10,000, originally saved to purchase a home, on costs related to treatment at St. Jude.

Only about half of the $7.3 billion St. Jude has received in contributions in the past five fiscal years went to the hospital’s research and caring for patients, according to its financial filings with the Internal Revenue Service. About 30% covered the cost of its fundraising operations, and the remaining 20%, or $1 of every $5 donated, increased its reserve fund.

Further, ProPublica found, a substantial portion of the cost for treatment is paid not by St. Jude but by families’ private insurance or by Medicaid, the government insurance program for low-income families. About 90% of patients are insured, bringing in more than $100 million in reimbursements for treatment a year. If a family shows up at St. Jude without insurance, a company hired by the charity helps them find it. St. Jude does cover copays and deductibles, an unusual benefit.

St. Jude spends about $500 million a year on patient services – a figure that includes all medical care and other assistance. Very little of what St. Jude raises from the public goes to pay for food, travel, and housing for families, the investigation found. Last year, it was 2% of the money raised, or nearly $40 million.

In written responses to ProPublica, lawyers for St. Jude and its fundraising arm, the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, or ALSAC, emphasized that countless families have benefited from the charity provided since the hospital opened its doors in 1962.

“ProPublica should be celebrating St. Jude and ALSAC for their commitment to finding cures, saving children’s lives, and optimizing patient outcomes,” one of their letters said.

It is unquestioned that St. Jude has helped thousands of children and their families over the decades. Patients have offered scores of testimonials about the hospital’s generosity and care.

“This often comes as a huge relief to families who often expect to sell all their belongings just so their children can get the medical care and treatment they need to save their lives,” the hospital’s lawyers wrote. “St. Jude and ALSAC understand that this arrangement cannot cover all financial obligations of all families, nor can St. Jude or ALSAC shield families from all the financial and emotional effects” of a child’s illness.

St. Jude said it discloses the limits of its aid to families on its website and in material provided to those whose children are admitted to the hospital. That includes the rule Burt ran into, that the hospital covers the travel and housing costs of only one caregiver and one patient. For many families, the daily food budget is capped at $50. In some cases, hotel stays en route are provided only if families travel more than 500 miles to get to St. Jude.

St. Jude said its assistance is “based on guidelines to ensure fairness and responsible use of donor funds” and on remaining compliant with a federal anti-kickback statute that makes it a criminal offense to offer something of value to induce a medical referral. St. Jude declined to explain how the law affects the amount or type of financial assistance it provides to families.

“St. Jude has never promised anyone – neither patients nor the public in general – that it can solve all financial problems,” the letter said.

When parents need additional financial help, St. Jude’s social workers often send them to smaller charities or in some cases suggest that they apply for government aid.

They refer many to the Andrew McDonough B+ Foundation, which gives more than $2.5 million a year in grants to thousands of families of pediatric cancer patients at hospitals across the country to help cover rent, utilities, and other urgent expenses.

Joe McDonough, the foundation’s founder and president, said St. Jude families have the same money problems as families of patients at other children’s hospitals, even though he said St. Jude’s marketing creates the public perception that it alleviates these burdens.

“People say to me, ‘Why are you helping St. Jude families?’ ” McDonough said. “Well, what happens when a family lives in Augusta, Georgia, and they’re being treated at St. Jude? They still have to pay the rent on their apartment back in Augusta, Georgia. They still have to make their car payment. And it’s not my position to say whether St. Jude should be paying for all those expenses or not. I’m just explaining that it’s not a totally free ride.”

The help St. Jude provides to families may soon be increasing.

After ProPublica provided St. Jude with the findings of its reporting, the hospital informed families of a dramatic expansion in the assistance it will give to parents and other relatives during their kids’ treatment in Memphis.

Among the most significant changes are increasing travel benefits to two parents instead of one and covering regular trips to Memphis for siblings and other loved ones. St. Jude’s letter to parents said the changes take effect Nov. 15.

That would’ve made a big difference for Burt.

Burt’s daughter, whom ProPublica is not identifying at her mother’s request, was originally diagnosed with cancer in early 2015, when doctors discovered a tumor pressing against her brain stem. She had successful emergency surgery to remove the mass at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, Texas. Medicaid and Dell Children’s covered the bill, but the family was still faced with the cost of her ongoing treatment.

“At that point I’m thinking: ‘What am I going to do? I guess I’m selling my house, whatever it takes,’” Burt recalled. “Honestly, that was probably a big deciding factor for St. Jude.”

St. Jude accepted Burt’s daughter into a clinical trial, and the family moved to the hospital’s patient housing in Memphis for several months. Both parents stopped working for a time, and people in their hometown raised cash to pay their bills.

Her cancer relapsed the following year with several new, inoperable brain tumors. Burt and his daughter’s mom broke up during that round of treatment, and financial problems piled up.

Burt said his credit score dropped so low that utility companies refused to set up service unless he first paid a deposit. One of the family’s cars was repossessed, he said. Burt’s 2005 Chevrolet Colorado pickup has 300,000 miles on it, many of them logged on trips from Texas to Memphis. When Burt’s daughter was at St. Jude for treatment or exams, he’d work all week, then visit on many weekends where he would spend Saturday night sleeping in the hospital parking lot.

He asked hospital officials if he could sleep in St. Jude’s housing, but they turned him down, he said.

Burt said he was happy with the care St. Jude provided. His daughter’s health is stable, he said, and brain scans taken during her September exam confirmed her two remaining tumors haven’t grown. But he’s still trying to recover financially.

“It’s five years now,” Burt said, “and I’m not completely caught up yet.”
 

A fundraising giant

St. Jude began with a fledgling entertainer praying for a career break.

When Danny Thomas, a comic and actor best known for the TV sitcom “Make Room for Daddy,” was struggling to earn a living in the late 1930s, the devout Roman Catholic went to church and asked for help from the patron saint of desperate cases, St. Jude Thaddeus. If he made it big, Thomas promised to build “a shrine where the poor and the helpless and the hopeless may come for comfort and aid,” according to a history published by ALSAC.

Within five years, Thomas became a star and worked to fulfill his promise by building a children’s hospital named after St. Jude and a fundraising organization to support it. Thomas, whose parents were Lebanese immigrants, recruited others who shared his Middle Eastern roots to help.

He used his fame to raise the hospital’s profile, appearing in ads for St. Jude and hosting fundraising events starring the likes of Elvis Presley and Sammy Davis Jr. Thomas’ daughter Marlo, herself a TV star, succeeded him in championing St. Jude.

Today, St. Jude is a specialty treatment and research center with about 5,700 employees and 73 beds. Other top children’s hospitals have more staff and beds, and they also treat more conditions.

Though St. Jude raises money across the world, most of its patients come from Tennessee and surrounding states. Patients from elsewhere are usually enrolled in clinical trials.

ALSAC, which handles St. Jude’s fundraising and investments, has 2,188 employees in Memphis and in 36 regional offices across the country. More than 400 of the fundraising arm’s employees are paid over $100,000, according to IRS filings. The charity takes in so much money each year that it regularly steers hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to reserve accounts, the filings show.

Overall, St. Jude’s reserve has grown by 58% over the past five fiscal years, during which it has added $1.9 billion to its investment accounts and shifted its portfolio toward financial products designed to generate bigger returns than stocks, bonds, and mutual funds traditionally deliver. The charity stowed more than a third of the new surplus, $688 million, in riskier private equity investments.

IRS rules do not limit the size of a nonprofit’s reserves, and experts on charitable finance differ on best practices.

St. Jude meets Better Business Bureau guidelines, which call for charities to maintain reserves of less than three times total expenses, but other experts expressed alarm that the hospital had accumulated such a large sum of money.

The size of the St. Jude reserve is “staggering,” said Laura Otten, the director of LaSalle University’s master program in nonprofit leadership. She said a typical reserve for a nonprofit the size of St. Jude is one to two years of expenses. Donors generally want to know their dollars are being put to work, she said.

The hospital said it needs a large reserve because its unique operating model relies on donations to fund annual operating costs. “[W]e are highly donor-dependent and subject to the economic driven vagaries of charitable giving,” the hospital said in a written response to ProPublica questions.

But the hospital’s reserve is already more than large enough to buffer against recessions and potential drops in donations, said Ge Bai, a professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University. “They should be spending the money as aggressively as they raise it, but they seem to be hoarding,” Bai said.

The hospital said it is also raising billions to fund the construction of new housing and research space, although its plans do not currently include spending any of the reserve on new facilities.

St. Jude’s reserves have ballooned at a time when researchers, oncologists, advocates, and families complain about a dearth of funding for pediatric cancer studies nationally.

Dozens of other children’s hospitals across the country have research divisions devoted to pediatric cancer and enroll their patients in clinical trials for new drugs and procedures. They pay for research staff and studies in part with donations from their local communities, often competing directly against St. Jude. ALSAC has regional offices in several U.S. cities with elite pediatric cancer centers of their own, including Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and Seattle.

Coury Shadyac, an ALSAC vice president and daughter of the organization’s CEO, Richard Shadyac Jr., oversees a team of 45 fundraisers along the West Coast “raising $300 million annually” for St. Jude, according to her LinkedIn profile. That’s $100 million more in donations than either Children’s Hospital Los Angeles or Seattle Children’s Hospital, two of the nation’s leading pediatric cancer institutions, received in fiscal year 2019, IRS disclosures show. But it’s only a small part of St. Jude’s fundraising haul.

ALSAC’s ubiquitous fundraising has led to concerns that it undercuts other hospitals’ campaigns. Some doctors interviewed by ProPublica said they have encouraged donors to give their money to hospitals closer to home.

David Clark, a pediatrician and former longtime chairperson of pediatrics at Albany Medical Center in New York, said St. Jude raises tens of thousands of dollars in his region that does little to benefit the children with cancer in his area since almost all are treated locally. ALSAC has a fundraising office located a few miles from Albany Medical.

“They think of every way they can to make money and the least amount of ways to spend it,” Clark said. “They deceive people into supporting something that is totally dishonest.”

Nearly all St. Jude solicitations feature the hospital’s patients – the children usually smiling and bald from treatment – along with the familiar promise that it never sends families a bill.

It’s a message that ALSAC has tested and researched to maximize donations. Donors appreciate the promise to never bill families, said Mary Kate Tolan, an ALSAC executive, in a podcast last year. She added that no parent should have to take out a second mortgage or lose their job because their child is being treated at St. Jude.

Alternative messaging to the no-bills promise did not “perform as well,” said Tolan, who develops emerging technologies for ALSAC. Tolan did not return requests for comment.
 

“Borrowing and begging”

Catherine Rainey thought she would be free of financial worry when her 2-year-old daughter Harlee was admitted to St. Jude last year.

“The first thing my dad said was: ‘Catherine, you have nothing to worry about. They raise billions of dollars. Anytime you have a problem, you tell them and they will take care of it,’ ” she said.

But like many families, the Raineys discovered that St. Jude’s charity came with limits on payments for expenses such as travel that could be bewildering.

Harlee ended up at St. Jude after first going to nearby Niswonger Children’s Hospital in Johnson City, Tenn., in October 2020. The doctors there discovered a cancerous mass attached to her right kidney. The hospital is a St. Jude affiliate, and the doctors recommended the toddler be treated in Memphis.

Rainey, a single mother of two young girls, had to leave her job as a nurse for months to be with Harlee at St. Jude. The loss of income quickly created problems. “My family, we don’t come from money,” she said. “We are not doctors and billionaires. We make it. That is it.”

St. Jude did provide food and housing on campus. But the hospital said it couldn’t help with the items that were causing Rainey to worry, including car payments, insurance, and cellphone bills.

Rainey’s boss set up a GoFundMe account to help make up some of her lost income. A small local charity, Kari’s Heart Foundation, also helped out by paying about $3,000 worth of phone bills and car payments, staving off repossession.

“It was just a bunch of borrowing and begging,” Rainey said of her experience while her daughter was treated in Memphis. “They acted like it was coming out of their own pocket.”

Harlee has checkups at St. Jude every three months that last about four days. The costs of travel to and from St. Jude put an additional strain on Rainey and Harlee. St. Jude is an eight-hour ride, without stops, from Rainey’s home in Appalachia, Va., a town of 1,432 people near the Kentucky border.

Rainey said her daughter generally can make it about two-thirds of the way, with frequent stops, before she has had enough. “When she is done, she is really done,” Rainey said. “She will scream, cry, and kick.”

In July, in advance of an August trip to Memphis, Rainey called the patient services department at St. Jude to see whether they could help pay for a hotel to break up the travel day — an expense Rainey said she could not afford.

To qualify for a hotel reimbursement, Rainey said, St. Jude told her she had to live more than 500 miles from Memphis. The ride from her home to the hospital is 530 miles (a measurement ProPublica confirmed with mapping tools). However, Rainey said, St. Jude told her it measured the trip from city limit to city limit and came up with a distance of 491 miles. Even using that metric, the distance is still more than 500 miles, ProPublica found.

When she challenged the hospital’s stance, Rainey said she was berated by a patient services representative.

“I was feeling pissed off, and I was crying,” Rainey said of the interaction. “You give up your whole life for your child, and they tell you don’t worry about anything, we will cover this and then they tell you to just push through the drive.”

Rainey did what she could to make the trip go smoothly: She configured a small table to extend across her daughter’s car seat, so Harlee could play with the coloring books, markers, and Play-Doh bought for the ride. She packed snacks and a cooler full of drinks. Since Harlee was still potty training, she brought extra towels and clothes for accidents. The final step was handing Harlee her Baby Yoda doll once she settled into her car seat. Rainey had sewed a port in the doll’s chest to mirror the one Harlee has in hers.

About three hours from Memphis, Harlee was crying inconsolably. Rainey pulled off the interstate and stopped at the first hotel she could find. She later learned it had been described in online reviews as “awful,” a “nightmare,” “disgusting,” and “horrible.”

“I didn’t know the area,” she said. “The hotel was garbage. It just made it worse.”

The drive home also required a hotel stop, but this time Rainey was able to find one that was cleaner. A $100 donation from a local charity helped to offset the cost.

Among the changes St. Jude is making is to reimburse families like Rainey’s, who live more than 400 miles from the hospital, for an overnight stay at a hotel when making the trip to Memphis.

Rainey said she was called by a St. Jude representative after ProPublica asked about her situation and was told the hospital would pay for her past hotel stays when traveling back and forth to St. Jude. The representative, Rainey said, also told her the hospital discovered the way it had been measuring mileage was inaccurate.

“I am not the only one,” Rainey said. “There are others. They should reimburse all the families.”

The anxiety of unpaid bills piling up, combined with caring for a child undergoing chemotherapy or radiation, takes a severe toll on parents and guardians, said Christopher Hope, a UPS driver who started a Memphis-based foundation after meeting St. Jude parents who were in financial crisis.

Hope’s small charity spent $12,000 last year to help families. Parents in St. Jude social media groups often refer families in need to it. The charity has helped families cover mortgage and car payments.

“I never knew anything about this until hearing about it from families,” Hope said. “All we hear is about kids and treatment, not the other side of it.”
 

“It’s not free”

In addition to charities like Hope’s, St. Jude families have repeatedly turned to fundraising sites and networks of their relatives, friends, and neighbors to help cover basic expenses while unable to work during their children’s treatment. Parents’ requests on fundraising sites are sometimes desperate pleas.

In January 2017, one father in North Carolina said he’d had to abandon a business venture to take time for his son to receive care at St. Jude. His income had plummeted. He asked friends to give as little as $10 to “at least make it possible to survive.”

This year, a mother in Memphis whose 1-year-old son receives care at St. Jude for sickle cell disorder ran out of medical leave and couldn’t work her shifts at a clothing distribution center. After the child had a flare-up in July requiring several days of treatment at the hospital, she said she returned home to find her power shut off. Sitting in a dark apartment, unable to pay her utility bills, she set up a GoFundMe campaign. She received less than $20 through the site; her relatives eventually pooled $350 to get her electricity restored.

Even parents with stable jobs and private health insurance often take on debt and need outside help.

When Taylr and Treg Murphy’s 17-year-old son Peyton was diagnosed with cancer and needed monthslong treatment at St. Jude in 2017, the entire family – mom, dad, sister, and brother – went with him, traveling from their home in Lafayette, La., to Memphis. Treg took a leave from his job at an oil mining company and Taylr, who works at her mother’s bakery, did the same.

“We knew that it was going to be a collective team effort,” Treg said. “Without even a discussion, we figured that if Peyton’s got to go for the surgery, we’re all going.”

Peyton had an enormous tumor that had grown out of his right femur and was crowding his knee. Rounds of chemotherapy appeared to have killed osteosarcoma cells elsewhere in his body. But he needed to undergo a procedure called limb-sparing surgery that would require weeks of recovery time at the hospital.

The hospital agreed to allow all five family members to stay for free at St. Jude if they bunked together in a single room. It assigned them a spot in Tri Delta Place, its hotel-like short-term patient residence on the campus. Tri Delta is set up for visits of up to seven days, according to the hospital’s guide for volunteers, but the Murphys were there for almost 50.

Taylr said the unit at Tri Delta had no oven or stove and St. Jude provided no grocery money, instead allotting them a $50-per-day credit at the hospital cafeteria, Kay Kafe – not enough to feed the family of five. As the weeks wore on, the Murphys split grilled cheese sandwiches and paid for food out of pocket.

After ProPublica asked about the hospital’s food allowances, St. Jude said it would increase them as part of the changes scheduled to go into effect this month. The hospital switched from a $50-a-day cap per family to providing $25 a day to each family member. For a family of four, that would double the food benefit. A weekly stipend given to families in long-term housing was increased to $150 from $125.

For the Murphys, it was the loss of their work income, more than out-of-pocket expenses, that put them into a financial hole as Peyton’s treatment went on. Treg’s employer couldn’t pay him during his long absences.

Fearful of being evicted or having their car repossessed, Taylr said she asked a St. Jude social worker for assistance. The social worker helped her apply for grants from other charities. Taylr said the B+ Foundation paid their rent one month, which ensured they’d have a home to return to.

In the years since his initial treatment, Peyton has gone back to St. Jude repeatedly for exams and surgeries to remove malignant growths in his lungs. Taylr and Treg have missed more work to bring Peyton to Memphis, costing them thousands of dollars more in income.

By the start of this year, Taylr and Treg said they were about $20,000 in debt and panicking. Dustin Poirier, a former UFC champion from their hometown, heard from a friend about Peyton and the family’s financial trouble. He donated $10,000 to them from his personal charity and in May hosted a local fundraiser that collected enough to pay off their credit cards.

St. Jude families sometimes commiserate about money problems with each other, Taylr said, but few are aware of the extent of the hospital’s unspent resources. The Murphys said they didn’t know St. Jude has more than $5 billion in reserve or that it continues to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus donations each year.

“That’s just insane,” Taylr said. “That just blows my mind. When we first started getting treated, people would be like, ‘Oh, St. Jude covers everything, that’s awesome.’ That’s not how it works. People don’t understand that. I truly didn’t understand before I got into St. Jude.”

Taylr and Treg said the doctors at St. Jude are “amazing” and they’re grateful for their son’s care. But they bristled at the assumption that it was covered by the hospital’s charity. The family’s insurance paid a substantial part of the bills.

“It’s not free,” Taylr said. “My husband works very hard for the insurance we have – and they are billed.” The Murphys pay $12,000 in health insurance premiums each year.

Their struggle continues. Peyton’s cancer has relapsed, and he’s making regular trips with his mom or dad back to St. Jude for chemotherapy. The family is again applying for help from other charities.
 

Wiped out savings

The costs associated with care at St. Jude caused at least one family to stop going to Memphis altogether.

Last winter, Kelly Edwards was excitedly searching through Tulsa real estate listings after years of diligently saving $10,000 for a down payment on a house. She craved a permanent home for herself and the two young brothers she had taken in five years earlier at the behest of a family friend. She hoped to adopt the boys, now 13 and 9, who call her mom.

In February, the older boy, DJ, was lethargic and uninterested in his schoolwork. After several doctor visits, he was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia at a Tulsa hospital. The cancer, referred to as ALL, is the most common type among children, with survival rates that exceed 90%. A day after his diagnosis, DJ and Edwards were driving six hours to Memphis for treatment at St. Jude, which is affiliated with the Oklahoma hospital.

The pair stayed for free at an independently operated Ronald McDonald House near St. Jude, and a weekly stipend from the hospital helped to pay for meals – aid that Edwards said was a blessing. DJ had health insurance through the Oklahoma Medicaid program.

But as with the Murphys, lost income soon put Edwards’ family into financial jeopardy. She works as a supervisor for a company that delivers packages for Amazon. After she used up two weeks of paid time off, she stopped getting paychecks. The bills, however, kept coming: rent, car payments, utilities. To that was added the $250 a week she paid a friend to stay with DJ’s younger brother and her two dogs in Tulsa.

Within four months, her house savings were wiped out. Edwards said she told her St. Jude social worker about her financial woes but got no additional help.

One of Edwards’ adult daughters started a GoFundMe campaign to help, bringing in just over $3,000. Edwards said she appreciated the aid but believes donations were kept low by the widespread perception that St. Jude families don’t have financial problems.

“Everyone hears that everything is taken care of by St. Jude,” she said. “That is not true, but everyone has that mentality.” She said someone she knew asked her “what is that money going for if St. Jude’s is paying for everything?”

DJ was scheduled to go back to St. Jude for three weeks of treatment in August, but Edwards decided she simply couldn’t afford it. “I don’t have the money to go back and forth,” she said. She worked with DJ’s local doctors and found that the hospital near her home in Tulsa could provide the same treatment he was scheduled to get in Tennessee.

The local treatment allowed her to continue working some shifts and to be at home with both of her boys. DJ is also happier when he is home, Edwards said.

Edwards and the boys are now living in a small house her brother owns just outside Tulsa. Late on a recent weekday afternoon, DJ slowly shuffled into the living room, exhausted from a day of chemotherapy treatment.

He is in the midst of a 20-week regimen where he receives the cancer-killing drugs every other day, just one phase of a nearly three-year treatment plan. He wore an orange knit hat, T-shirt, and shorts. He rubbed his eyes before asking a visitor, “How is your day going?” He smiled at the positive response. When he heard the family was eating steak for dinner, he eagerly jumped up to start helping in the kitchen. After they moved in, Edwards hung family portraits on the walls to make it feel homier. She doesn’t expect they will be moving again any time soon.

The dream of buying a home of their own is gone.

Former ProPublica reporter Marshall Allen contributed reporting. Kirsten Berg contributed research.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A series of sharp knocks on his driver’s side window startled Jason Burt awake.

It was the middle of the night on a Saturday in 2016. Burt was sleeping in his pickup truck in the parking lot of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in downtown Memphis, Tenn., where his 5-year-old daughter was being treated for brain cancer. He’d driven more than 500 miles from his home in Central Texas to visit her.

A St. Jude security guard peered into the truck and asked Burt what he was doing. Burt explained that his daughter and her mother, his ex-girlfriend, were staying in the hospital’s free patient housing. But St. Jude provides housing for only one parent. Burt, a school bus driver making $20,000 a year, told the guard he couldn’t afford a hotel. The guard let the exhausted father go back to sleep.

St. Jude would do no more to find him a place to stay.

“They were aware of the situation,” Burt said. “I didn’t push anything. I was just grateful she was getting treated and I was doing what I needed to do.”

St. Jude is the largest and most highly regarded health care charity in the country. Each year, the Memphis hospital’s fundraisers send out hundreds of millions of letters, many with heart-wrenching photographs of children left bald from battling cancer. Celebrities like Jennifer Aniston and Sofia Vergara sing the hospital’s praises in televised advertisements. This year, St. Jude’s fundraising reached outer space. The SpaceX Inspiration4 mission in September included a former St. Jude patient as a crew member.

Last year, St. Jude raised a record $2 billion. U.S. News & World Report ranked it the country’s 10th-best children’s cancer hospital, and St. Jude raised roughly as much as the nine hospitals ahead of it put together. It currently has $5.2 billion in reserves, a sum large enough to run the institution at current levels for the next four and a half years without a single additional donation.

St. Jude makes a unique promise as part of its fundraising: “Families never receive a bill from St. Jude for treatment, travel, housing or food – because all a family should worry about is helping their child live.”

But for many families, treatment at St. Jude does not relieve all the financial burdens they incur in getting care for their children, including housing, travel, and food costs that fall outside the hospital’s strict limits, a ProPublica investigation has found.

While families may not receive a bill from St. Jude, the hospital doesn’t cover what’s usually the biggest source of financial stress associated with childhood cancer: The loss of income as parents quit or take leave from jobs to be with their child during treatment. For many families, the consequence is missed payments for cars, utilities, and cellphones. Others face eviction or foreclosure because they can’t keep up with rent and mortgage payments.

Parents at St. Jude have exhausted savings and retirement accounts, borrowed from family and friends, or asked other charities for aid. ProPublica identified more than 100 St. Jude families seeking financial help through the online fundraiser GoFundMe, with half of the campaigns started in the past two years. We counted scores of other events like concerts and yard sales organized to help St. Jude families in need.

One family relied on a mixed martial arts fighter to help raise money for expenses like car repairs and cellphone bills, items that St. Jude would not cover. Another spent $10,000, originally saved to purchase a home, on costs related to treatment at St. Jude.

Only about half of the $7.3 billion St. Jude has received in contributions in the past five fiscal years went to the hospital’s research and caring for patients, according to its financial filings with the Internal Revenue Service. About 30% covered the cost of its fundraising operations, and the remaining 20%, or $1 of every $5 donated, increased its reserve fund.

Further, ProPublica found, a substantial portion of the cost for treatment is paid not by St. Jude but by families’ private insurance or by Medicaid, the government insurance program for low-income families. About 90% of patients are insured, bringing in more than $100 million in reimbursements for treatment a year. If a family shows up at St. Jude without insurance, a company hired by the charity helps them find it. St. Jude does cover copays and deductibles, an unusual benefit.

St. Jude spends about $500 million a year on patient services – a figure that includes all medical care and other assistance. Very little of what St. Jude raises from the public goes to pay for food, travel, and housing for families, the investigation found. Last year, it was 2% of the money raised, or nearly $40 million.

In written responses to ProPublica, lawyers for St. Jude and its fundraising arm, the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, or ALSAC, emphasized that countless families have benefited from the charity provided since the hospital opened its doors in 1962.

“ProPublica should be celebrating St. Jude and ALSAC for their commitment to finding cures, saving children’s lives, and optimizing patient outcomes,” one of their letters said.

It is unquestioned that St. Jude has helped thousands of children and their families over the decades. Patients have offered scores of testimonials about the hospital’s generosity and care.

“This often comes as a huge relief to families who often expect to sell all their belongings just so their children can get the medical care and treatment they need to save their lives,” the hospital’s lawyers wrote. “St. Jude and ALSAC understand that this arrangement cannot cover all financial obligations of all families, nor can St. Jude or ALSAC shield families from all the financial and emotional effects” of a child’s illness.

St. Jude said it discloses the limits of its aid to families on its website and in material provided to those whose children are admitted to the hospital. That includes the rule Burt ran into, that the hospital covers the travel and housing costs of only one caregiver and one patient. For many families, the daily food budget is capped at $50. In some cases, hotel stays en route are provided only if families travel more than 500 miles to get to St. Jude.

St. Jude said its assistance is “based on guidelines to ensure fairness and responsible use of donor funds” and on remaining compliant with a federal anti-kickback statute that makes it a criminal offense to offer something of value to induce a medical referral. St. Jude declined to explain how the law affects the amount or type of financial assistance it provides to families.

“St. Jude has never promised anyone – neither patients nor the public in general – that it can solve all financial problems,” the letter said.

When parents need additional financial help, St. Jude’s social workers often send them to smaller charities or in some cases suggest that they apply for government aid.

They refer many to the Andrew McDonough B+ Foundation, which gives more than $2.5 million a year in grants to thousands of families of pediatric cancer patients at hospitals across the country to help cover rent, utilities, and other urgent expenses.

Joe McDonough, the foundation’s founder and president, said St. Jude families have the same money problems as families of patients at other children’s hospitals, even though he said St. Jude’s marketing creates the public perception that it alleviates these burdens.

“People say to me, ‘Why are you helping St. Jude families?’ ” McDonough said. “Well, what happens when a family lives in Augusta, Georgia, and they’re being treated at St. Jude? They still have to pay the rent on their apartment back in Augusta, Georgia. They still have to make their car payment. And it’s not my position to say whether St. Jude should be paying for all those expenses or not. I’m just explaining that it’s not a totally free ride.”

The help St. Jude provides to families may soon be increasing.

After ProPublica provided St. Jude with the findings of its reporting, the hospital informed families of a dramatic expansion in the assistance it will give to parents and other relatives during their kids’ treatment in Memphis.

Among the most significant changes are increasing travel benefits to two parents instead of one and covering regular trips to Memphis for siblings and other loved ones. St. Jude’s letter to parents said the changes take effect Nov. 15.

That would’ve made a big difference for Burt.

Burt’s daughter, whom ProPublica is not identifying at her mother’s request, was originally diagnosed with cancer in early 2015, when doctors discovered a tumor pressing against her brain stem. She had successful emergency surgery to remove the mass at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, Texas. Medicaid and Dell Children’s covered the bill, but the family was still faced with the cost of her ongoing treatment.

“At that point I’m thinking: ‘What am I going to do? I guess I’m selling my house, whatever it takes,’” Burt recalled. “Honestly, that was probably a big deciding factor for St. Jude.”

St. Jude accepted Burt’s daughter into a clinical trial, and the family moved to the hospital’s patient housing in Memphis for several months. Both parents stopped working for a time, and people in their hometown raised cash to pay their bills.

Her cancer relapsed the following year with several new, inoperable brain tumors. Burt and his daughter’s mom broke up during that round of treatment, and financial problems piled up.

Burt said his credit score dropped so low that utility companies refused to set up service unless he first paid a deposit. One of the family’s cars was repossessed, he said. Burt’s 2005 Chevrolet Colorado pickup has 300,000 miles on it, many of them logged on trips from Texas to Memphis. When Burt’s daughter was at St. Jude for treatment or exams, he’d work all week, then visit on many weekends where he would spend Saturday night sleeping in the hospital parking lot.

He asked hospital officials if he could sleep in St. Jude’s housing, but they turned him down, he said.

Burt said he was happy with the care St. Jude provided. His daughter’s health is stable, he said, and brain scans taken during her September exam confirmed her two remaining tumors haven’t grown. But he’s still trying to recover financially.

“It’s five years now,” Burt said, “and I’m not completely caught up yet.”
 

A fundraising giant

St. Jude began with a fledgling entertainer praying for a career break.

When Danny Thomas, a comic and actor best known for the TV sitcom “Make Room for Daddy,” was struggling to earn a living in the late 1930s, the devout Roman Catholic went to church and asked for help from the patron saint of desperate cases, St. Jude Thaddeus. If he made it big, Thomas promised to build “a shrine where the poor and the helpless and the hopeless may come for comfort and aid,” according to a history published by ALSAC.

Within five years, Thomas became a star and worked to fulfill his promise by building a children’s hospital named after St. Jude and a fundraising organization to support it. Thomas, whose parents were Lebanese immigrants, recruited others who shared his Middle Eastern roots to help.

He used his fame to raise the hospital’s profile, appearing in ads for St. Jude and hosting fundraising events starring the likes of Elvis Presley and Sammy Davis Jr. Thomas’ daughter Marlo, herself a TV star, succeeded him in championing St. Jude.

Today, St. Jude is a specialty treatment and research center with about 5,700 employees and 73 beds. Other top children’s hospitals have more staff and beds, and they also treat more conditions.

Though St. Jude raises money across the world, most of its patients come from Tennessee and surrounding states. Patients from elsewhere are usually enrolled in clinical trials.

ALSAC, which handles St. Jude’s fundraising and investments, has 2,188 employees in Memphis and in 36 regional offices across the country. More than 400 of the fundraising arm’s employees are paid over $100,000, according to IRS filings. The charity takes in so much money each year that it regularly steers hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to reserve accounts, the filings show.

Overall, St. Jude’s reserve has grown by 58% over the past five fiscal years, during which it has added $1.9 billion to its investment accounts and shifted its portfolio toward financial products designed to generate bigger returns than stocks, bonds, and mutual funds traditionally deliver. The charity stowed more than a third of the new surplus, $688 million, in riskier private equity investments.

IRS rules do not limit the size of a nonprofit’s reserves, and experts on charitable finance differ on best practices.

St. Jude meets Better Business Bureau guidelines, which call for charities to maintain reserves of less than three times total expenses, but other experts expressed alarm that the hospital had accumulated such a large sum of money.

The size of the St. Jude reserve is “staggering,” said Laura Otten, the director of LaSalle University’s master program in nonprofit leadership. She said a typical reserve for a nonprofit the size of St. Jude is one to two years of expenses. Donors generally want to know their dollars are being put to work, she said.

The hospital said it needs a large reserve because its unique operating model relies on donations to fund annual operating costs. “[W]e are highly donor-dependent and subject to the economic driven vagaries of charitable giving,” the hospital said in a written response to ProPublica questions.

But the hospital’s reserve is already more than large enough to buffer against recessions and potential drops in donations, said Ge Bai, a professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University. “They should be spending the money as aggressively as they raise it, but they seem to be hoarding,” Bai said.

The hospital said it is also raising billions to fund the construction of new housing and research space, although its plans do not currently include spending any of the reserve on new facilities.

St. Jude’s reserves have ballooned at a time when researchers, oncologists, advocates, and families complain about a dearth of funding for pediatric cancer studies nationally.

Dozens of other children’s hospitals across the country have research divisions devoted to pediatric cancer and enroll their patients in clinical trials for new drugs and procedures. They pay for research staff and studies in part with donations from their local communities, often competing directly against St. Jude. ALSAC has regional offices in several U.S. cities with elite pediatric cancer centers of their own, including Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and Seattle.

Coury Shadyac, an ALSAC vice president and daughter of the organization’s CEO, Richard Shadyac Jr., oversees a team of 45 fundraisers along the West Coast “raising $300 million annually” for St. Jude, according to her LinkedIn profile. That’s $100 million more in donations than either Children’s Hospital Los Angeles or Seattle Children’s Hospital, two of the nation’s leading pediatric cancer institutions, received in fiscal year 2019, IRS disclosures show. But it’s only a small part of St. Jude’s fundraising haul.

ALSAC’s ubiquitous fundraising has led to concerns that it undercuts other hospitals’ campaigns. Some doctors interviewed by ProPublica said they have encouraged donors to give their money to hospitals closer to home.

David Clark, a pediatrician and former longtime chairperson of pediatrics at Albany Medical Center in New York, said St. Jude raises tens of thousands of dollars in his region that does little to benefit the children with cancer in his area since almost all are treated locally. ALSAC has a fundraising office located a few miles from Albany Medical.

“They think of every way they can to make money and the least amount of ways to spend it,” Clark said. “They deceive people into supporting something that is totally dishonest.”

Nearly all St. Jude solicitations feature the hospital’s patients – the children usually smiling and bald from treatment – along with the familiar promise that it never sends families a bill.

It’s a message that ALSAC has tested and researched to maximize donations. Donors appreciate the promise to never bill families, said Mary Kate Tolan, an ALSAC executive, in a podcast last year. She added that no parent should have to take out a second mortgage or lose their job because their child is being treated at St. Jude.

Alternative messaging to the no-bills promise did not “perform as well,” said Tolan, who develops emerging technologies for ALSAC. Tolan did not return requests for comment.
 

“Borrowing and begging”

Catherine Rainey thought she would be free of financial worry when her 2-year-old daughter Harlee was admitted to St. Jude last year.

“The first thing my dad said was: ‘Catherine, you have nothing to worry about. They raise billions of dollars. Anytime you have a problem, you tell them and they will take care of it,’ ” she said.

But like many families, the Raineys discovered that St. Jude’s charity came with limits on payments for expenses such as travel that could be bewildering.

Harlee ended up at St. Jude after first going to nearby Niswonger Children’s Hospital in Johnson City, Tenn., in October 2020. The doctors there discovered a cancerous mass attached to her right kidney. The hospital is a St. Jude affiliate, and the doctors recommended the toddler be treated in Memphis.

Rainey, a single mother of two young girls, had to leave her job as a nurse for months to be with Harlee at St. Jude. The loss of income quickly created problems. “My family, we don’t come from money,” she said. “We are not doctors and billionaires. We make it. That is it.”

St. Jude did provide food and housing on campus. But the hospital said it couldn’t help with the items that were causing Rainey to worry, including car payments, insurance, and cellphone bills.

Rainey’s boss set up a GoFundMe account to help make up some of her lost income. A small local charity, Kari’s Heart Foundation, also helped out by paying about $3,000 worth of phone bills and car payments, staving off repossession.

“It was just a bunch of borrowing and begging,” Rainey said of her experience while her daughter was treated in Memphis. “They acted like it was coming out of their own pocket.”

Harlee has checkups at St. Jude every three months that last about four days. The costs of travel to and from St. Jude put an additional strain on Rainey and Harlee. St. Jude is an eight-hour ride, without stops, from Rainey’s home in Appalachia, Va., a town of 1,432 people near the Kentucky border.

Rainey said her daughter generally can make it about two-thirds of the way, with frequent stops, before she has had enough. “When she is done, she is really done,” Rainey said. “She will scream, cry, and kick.”

In July, in advance of an August trip to Memphis, Rainey called the patient services department at St. Jude to see whether they could help pay for a hotel to break up the travel day — an expense Rainey said she could not afford.

To qualify for a hotel reimbursement, Rainey said, St. Jude told her she had to live more than 500 miles from Memphis. The ride from her home to the hospital is 530 miles (a measurement ProPublica confirmed with mapping tools). However, Rainey said, St. Jude told her it measured the trip from city limit to city limit and came up with a distance of 491 miles. Even using that metric, the distance is still more than 500 miles, ProPublica found.

When she challenged the hospital’s stance, Rainey said she was berated by a patient services representative.

“I was feeling pissed off, and I was crying,” Rainey said of the interaction. “You give up your whole life for your child, and they tell you don’t worry about anything, we will cover this and then they tell you to just push through the drive.”

Rainey did what she could to make the trip go smoothly: She configured a small table to extend across her daughter’s car seat, so Harlee could play with the coloring books, markers, and Play-Doh bought for the ride. She packed snacks and a cooler full of drinks. Since Harlee was still potty training, she brought extra towels and clothes for accidents. The final step was handing Harlee her Baby Yoda doll once she settled into her car seat. Rainey had sewed a port in the doll’s chest to mirror the one Harlee has in hers.

About three hours from Memphis, Harlee was crying inconsolably. Rainey pulled off the interstate and stopped at the first hotel she could find. She later learned it had been described in online reviews as “awful,” a “nightmare,” “disgusting,” and “horrible.”

“I didn’t know the area,” she said. “The hotel was garbage. It just made it worse.”

The drive home also required a hotel stop, but this time Rainey was able to find one that was cleaner. A $100 donation from a local charity helped to offset the cost.

Among the changes St. Jude is making is to reimburse families like Rainey’s, who live more than 400 miles from the hospital, for an overnight stay at a hotel when making the trip to Memphis.

Rainey said she was called by a St. Jude representative after ProPublica asked about her situation and was told the hospital would pay for her past hotel stays when traveling back and forth to St. Jude. The representative, Rainey said, also told her the hospital discovered the way it had been measuring mileage was inaccurate.

“I am not the only one,” Rainey said. “There are others. They should reimburse all the families.”

The anxiety of unpaid bills piling up, combined with caring for a child undergoing chemotherapy or radiation, takes a severe toll on parents and guardians, said Christopher Hope, a UPS driver who started a Memphis-based foundation after meeting St. Jude parents who were in financial crisis.

Hope’s small charity spent $12,000 last year to help families. Parents in St. Jude social media groups often refer families in need to it. The charity has helped families cover mortgage and car payments.

“I never knew anything about this until hearing about it from families,” Hope said. “All we hear is about kids and treatment, not the other side of it.”
 

“It’s not free”

In addition to charities like Hope’s, St. Jude families have repeatedly turned to fundraising sites and networks of their relatives, friends, and neighbors to help cover basic expenses while unable to work during their children’s treatment. Parents’ requests on fundraising sites are sometimes desperate pleas.

In January 2017, one father in North Carolina said he’d had to abandon a business venture to take time for his son to receive care at St. Jude. His income had plummeted. He asked friends to give as little as $10 to “at least make it possible to survive.”

This year, a mother in Memphis whose 1-year-old son receives care at St. Jude for sickle cell disorder ran out of medical leave and couldn’t work her shifts at a clothing distribution center. After the child had a flare-up in July requiring several days of treatment at the hospital, she said she returned home to find her power shut off. Sitting in a dark apartment, unable to pay her utility bills, she set up a GoFundMe campaign. She received less than $20 through the site; her relatives eventually pooled $350 to get her electricity restored.

Even parents with stable jobs and private health insurance often take on debt and need outside help.

When Taylr and Treg Murphy’s 17-year-old son Peyton was diagnosed with cancer and needed monthslong treatment at St. Jude in 2017, the entire family – mom, dad, sister, and brother – went with him, traveling from their home in Lafayette, La., to Memphis. Treg took a leave from his job at an oil mining company and Taylr, who works at her mother’s bakery, did the same.

“We knew that it was going to be a collective team effort,” Treg said. “Without even a discussion, we figured that if Peyton’s got to go for the surgery, we’re all going.”

Peyton had an enormous tumor that had grown out of his right femur and was crowding his knee. Rounds of chemotherapy appeared to have killed osteosarcoma cells elsewhere in his body. But he needed to undergo a procedure called limb-sparing surgery that would require weeks of recovery time at the hospital.

The hospital agreed to allow all five family members to stay for free at St. Jude if they bunked together in a single room. It assigned them a spot in Tri Delta Place, its hotel-like short-term patient residence on the campus. Tri Delta is set up for visits of up to seven days, according to the hospital’s guide for volunteers, but the Murphys were there for almost 50.

Taylr said the unit at Tri Delta had no oven or stove and St. Jude provided no grocery money, instead allotting them a $50-per-day credit at the hospital cafeteria, Kay Kafe – not enough to feed the family of five. As the weeks wore on, the Murphys split grilled cheese sandwiches and paid for food out of pocket.

After ProPublica asked about the hospital’s food allowances, St. Jude said it would increase them as part of the changes scheduled to go into effect this month. The hospital switched from a $50-a-day cap per family to providing $25 a day to each family member. For a family of four, that would double the food benefit. A weekly stipend given to families in long-term housing was increased to $150 from $125.

For the Murphys, it was the loss of their work income, more than out-of-pocket expenses, that put them into a financial hole as Peyton’s treatment went on. Treg’s employer couldn’t pay him during his long absences.

Fearful of being evicted or having their car repossessed, Taylr said she asked a St. Jude social worker for assistance. The social worker helped her apply for grants from other charities. Taylr said the B+ Foundation paid their rent one month, which ensured they’d have a home to return to.

In the years since his initial treatment, Peyton has gone back to St. Jude repeatedly for exams and surgeries to remove malignant growths in his lungs. Taylr and Treg have missed more work to bring Peyton to Memphis, costing them thousands of dollars more in income.

By the start of this year, Taylr and Treg said they were about $20,000 in debt and panicking. Dustin Poirier, a former UFC champion from their hometown, heard from a friend about Peyton and the family’s financial trouble. He donated $10,000 to them from his personal charity and in May hosted a local fundraiser that collected enough to pay off their credit cards.

St. Jude families sometimes commiserate about money problems with each other, Taylr said, but few are aware of the extent of the hospital’s unspent resources. The Murphys said they didn’t know St. Jude has more than $5 billion in reserve or that it continues to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus donations each year.

“That’s just insane,” Taylr said. “That just blows my mind. When we first started getting treated, people would be like, ‘Oh, St. Jude covers everything, that’s awesome.’ That’s not how it works. People don’t understand that. I truly didn’t understand before I got into St. Jude.”

Taylr and Treg said the doctors at St. Jude are “amazing” and they’re grateful for their son’s care. But they bristled at the assumption that it was covered by the hospital’s charity. The family’s insurance paid a substantial part of the bills.

“It’s not free,” Taylr said. “My husband works very hard for the insurance we have – and they are billed.” The Murphys pay $12,000 in health insurance premiums each year.

Their struggle continues. Peyton’s cancer has relapsed, and he’s making regular trips with his mom or dad back to St. Jude for chemotherapy. The family is again applying for help from other charities.
 

Wiped out savings

The costs associated with care at St. Jude caused at least one family to stop going to Memphis altogether.

Last winter, Kelly Edwards was excitedly searching through Tulsa real estate listings after years of diligently saving $10,000 for a down payment on a house. She craved a permanent home for herself and the two young brothers she had taken in five years earlier at the behest of a family friend. She hoped to adopt the boys, now 13 and 9, who call her mom.

In February, the older boy, DJ, was lethargic and uninterested in his schoolwork. After several doctor visits, he was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia at a Tulsa hospital. The cancer, referred to as ALL, is the most common type among children, with survival rates that exceed 90%. A day after his diagnosis, DJ and Edwards were driving six hours to Memphis for treatment at St. Jude, which is affiliated with the Oklahoma hospital.

The pair stayed for free at an independently operated Ronald McDonald House near St. Jude, and a weekly stipend from the hospital helped to pay for meals – aid that Edwards said was a blessing. DJ had health insurance through the Oklahoma Medicaid program.

But as with the Murphys, lost income soon put Edwards’ family into financial jeopardy. She works as a supervisor for a company that delivers packages for Amazon. After she used up two weeks of paid time off, she stopped getting paychecks. The bills, however, kept coming: rent, car payments, utilities. To that was added the $250 a week she paid a friend to stay with DJ’s younger brother and her two dogs in Tulsa.

Within four months, her house savings were wiped out. Edwards said she told her St. Jude social worker about her financial woes but got no additional help.

One of Edwards’ adult daughters started a GoFundMe campaign to help, bringing in just over $3,000. Edwards said she appreciated the aid but believes donations were kept low by the widespread perception that St. Jude families don’t have financial problems.

“Everyone hears that everything is taken care of by St. Jude,” she said. “That is not true, but everyone has that mentality.” She said someone she knew asked her “what is that money going for if St. Jude’s is paying for everything?”

DJ was scheduled to go back to St. Jude for three weeks of treatment in August, but Edwards decided she simply couldn’t afford it. “I don’t have the money to go back and forth,” she said. She worked with DJ’s local doctors and found that the hospital near her home in Tulsa could provide the same treatment he was scheduled to get in Tennessee.

The local treatment allowed her to continue working some shifts and to be at home with both of her boys. DJ is also happier when he is home, Edwards said.

Edwards and the boys are now living in a small house her brother owns just outside Tulsa. Late on a recent weekday afternoon, DJ slowly shuffled into the living room, exhausted from a day of chemotherapy treatment.

He is in the midst of a 20-week regimen where he receives the cancer-killing drugs every other day, just one phase of a nearly three-year treatment plan. He wore an orange knit hat, T-shirt, and shorts. He rubbed his eyes before asking a visitor, “How is your day going?” He smiled at the positive response. When he heard the family was eating steak for dinner, he eagerly jumped up to start helping in the kitchen. After they moved in, Edwards hung family portraits on the walls to make it feel homier. She doesn’t expect they will be moving again any time soon.

The dream of buying a home of their own is gone.

Former ProPublica reporter Marshall Allen contributed reporting. Kirsten Berg contributed research.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Holiday travel season is right around the corner, but coronavirus cases have already started to climb. But a new automated texting system could relieve pressure on emergency departments and reduce mortality rates if there were an uptick in COVID-19 this winter.

COVID Watch, a text message–based remote monitoring program developed by the University of Pennsylvania Health System, was associated with a 68% reduction in the risk of death, compared with those who received usual care. This was the main finding of a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The investigators also determined that patients who enrolled in the program were more likely to seek care in the ED and when they did, they came in on average 2 days sooner than those who received usual care.

“When our clinical team designed COVID Watch the goal was to facilitate hospital care for patients who require it, while supporting access to care for patients who can safely remain at home,” study author M. Kit Delgado, MD, MS, an assistant professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Researchers had initially hoped COVID Watch would relieve pressure on EDs, Dr. Delgado said.
 

Significantly lower mortality seen among COVID Watch group

For the study, Dr. Delgado and colleagues enrolled 3,488 patients in COVID Watch and 4,377 in the usual care group to compare outcomes at 30 and 60 days.

“We didn’t include patients who were diagnosed with COVID in the ER or hospital, so this is a lower-risk cohort of patients who test positive in outpatient settings,” Dr. Delgado noted. “Outpatients who received usual care and COVID Watch both had relatively low mortality, but it was significantly lower in those who were in COVID Watch.”

The researchers found that 3 patients in the COVID Watch group died within 30 days of their enrollment, compared with 12 in the control group. At 60 days after enrollment, 5 people within COVID Watch died, compared with 16 not using the system. More than one-third of the deaths in the usual care group occurred outside the hospital, compared with zero deaths among those in COVID Watch.
 

More than half of program participants were Black or Latino

The messaging system also reduced mortality rates among “all major racial and ethnic subgroups,” the researchers said, with more than 50% of the patients enrolled in COVID Watch having been Black or Latino.

“This is important because Black and Hispanic communities have experienced higher exposure and infection rates, decreased access to care, and have had higher mortality rates,” Dr. Delgado said. “Therefore, the results imply that this type of program could play a role in decreasing disparities in COVID outcomes if scaled more broadly.”
 

Outside expert: COVID Watch bring new approach to digital health monitoring

The study not only highlights the efficacy and sustainment of the COVID Watch program, but it sheds light on the possibility of using text message monitoring systems on other chronic disease conditions, said Jamie Faro, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“It brings a new approach to health monitoring using digital means, which may lessen the burden on health care providers and be more cost effective than usual care approaches,” said Dr. Faro, who is assistant professor at the department of population and quantitative health sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “Text messaging, which is used by over 80% of Americans, can allow us to reach a large percentage of the population for remote health care monitoring.”

Researchers of the current study said the findings “reveal a model for outpatient health system management of patients with COVID-19 and possibly other conditions where the early detection of clinical declines is critical.” Dr. Faro said that COVID Watch can have a measurable impact on an outcome that is truly life or death. However, it would be critical to understand how to reach those who either “were not offered or refused to take part in the program.”

The authors of the paper and Dr. Faro had no disclosures.

Holiday travel season is right around the corner, but coronavirus cases have already started to climb. But a new automated texting system could relieve pressure on emergency departments and reduce mortality rates if there were an uptick in COVID-19 this winter.

COVID Watch, a text message–based remote monitoring program developed by the University of Pennsylvania Health System, was associated with a 68% reduction in the risk of death, compared with those who received usual care. This was the main finding of a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The investigators also determined that patients who enrolled in the program were more likely to seek care in the ED and when they did, they came in on average 2 days sooner than those who received usual care.

“When our clinical team designed COVID Watch the goal was to facilitate hospital care for patients who require it, while supporting access to care for patients who can safely remain at home,” study author M. Kit Delgado, MD, MS, an assistant professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Researchers had initially hoped COVID Watch would relieve pressure on EDs, Dr. Delgado said.
 

Significantly lower mortality seen among COVID Watch group

For the study, Dr. Delgado and colleagues enrolled 3,488 patients in COVID Watch and 4,377 in the usual care group to compare outcomes at 30 and 60 days.

“We didn’t include patients who were diagnosed with COVID in the ER or hospital, so this is a lower-risk cohort of patients who test positive in outpatient settings,” Dr. Delgado noted. “Outpatients who received usual care and COVID Watch both had relatively low mortality, but it was significantly lower in those who were in COVID Watch.”

The researchers found that 3 patients in the COVID Watch group died within 30 days of their enrollment, compared with 12 in the control group. At 60 days after enrollment, 5 people within COVID Watch died, compared with 16 not using the system. More than one-third of the deaths in the usual care group occurred outside the hospital, compared with zero deaths among those in COVID Watch.
 

More than half of program participants were Black or Latino

The messaging system also reduced mortality rates among “all major racial and ethnic subgroups,” the researchers said, with more than 50% of the patients enrolled in COVID Watch having been Black or Latino.

“This is important because Black and Hispanic communities have experienced higher exposure and infection rates, decreased access to care, and have had higher mortality rates,” Dr. Delgado said. “Therefore, the results imply that this type of program could play a role in decreasing disparities in COVID outcomes if scaled more broadly.”
 

Outside expert: COVID Watch bring new approach to digital health monitoring

The study not only highlights the efficacy and sustainment of the COVID Watch program, but it sheds light on the possibility of using text message monitoring systems on other chronic disease conditions, said Jamie Faro, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“It brings a new approach to health monitoring using digital means, which may lessen the burden on health care providers and be more cost effective than usual care approaches,” said Dr. Faro, who is assistant professor at the department of population and quantitative health sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “Text messaging, which is used by over 80% of Americans, can allow us to reach a large percentage of the population for remote health care monitoring.”

Researchers of the current study said the findings “reveal a model for outpatient health system management of patients with COVID-19 and possibly other conditions where the early detection of clinical declines is critical.” Dr. Faro said that COVID Watch can have a measurable impact on an outcome that is truly life or death. However, it would be critical to understand how to reach those who either “were not offered or refused to take part in the program.”

The authors of the paper and Dr. Faro had no disclosures.

Holiday travel season is right around the corner, but coronavirus cases have already started to climb. But a new automated texting system could relieve pressure on emergency departments and reduce mortality rates if there were an uptick in COVID-19 this winter.

COVID Watch, a text message–based remote monitoring program developed by the University of Pennsylvania Health System, was associated with a 68% reduction in the risk of death, compared with those who received usual care. This was the main finding of a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The investigators also determined that patients who enrolled in the program were more likely to seek care in the ED and when they did, they came in on average 2 days sooner than those who received usual care.

“When our clinical team designed COVID Watch the goal was to facilitate hospital care for patients who require it, while supporting access to care for patients who can safely remain at home,” study author M. Kit Delgado, MD, MS, an assistant professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Researchers had initially hoped COVID Watch would relieve pressure on EDs, Dr. Delgado said.
 

Significantly lower mortality seen among COVID Watch group

For the study, Dr. Delgado and colleagues enrolled 3,488 patients in COVID Watch and 4,377 in the usual care group to compare outcomes at 30 and 60 days.

“We didn’t include patients who were diagnosed with COVID in the ER or hospital, so this is a lower-risk cohort of patients who test positive in outpatient settings,” Dr. Delgado noted. “Outpatients who received usual care and COVID Watch both had relatively low mortality, but it was significantly lower in those who were in COVID Watch.”

The researchers found that 3 patients in the COVID Watch group died within 30 days of their enrollment, compared with 12 in the control group. At 60 days after enrollment, 5 people within COVID Watch died, compared with 16 not using the system. More than one-third of the deaths in the usual care group occurred outside the hospital, compared with zero deaths among those in COVID Watch.
 

More than half of program participants were Black or Latino

The messaging system also reduced mortality rates among “all major racial and ethnic subgroups,” the researchers said, with more than 50% of the patients enrolled in COVID Watch having been Black or Latino.

“This is important because Black and Hispanic communities have experienced higher exposure and infection rates, decreased access to care, and have had higher mortality rates,” Dr. Delgado said. “Therefore, the results imply that this type of program could play a role in decreasing disparities in COVID outcomes if scaled more broadly.”
 

Outside expert: COVID Watch bring new approach to digital health monitoring

The study not only highlights the efficacy and sustainment of the COVID Watch program, but it sheds light on the possibility of using text message monitoring systems on other chronic disease conditions, said Jamie Faro, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“It brings a new approach to health monitoring using digital means, which may lessen the burden on health care providers and be more cost effective than usual care approaches,” said Dr. Faro, who is assistant professor at the department of population and quantitative health sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “Text messaging, which is used by over 80% of Americans, can allow us to reach a large percentage of the population for remote health care monitoring.”

Researchers of the current study said the findings “reveal a model for outpatient health system management of patients with COVID-19 and possibly other conditions where the early detection of clinical declines is critical.” Dr. Faro said that COVID Watch can have a measurable impact on an outcome that is truly life or death. However, it would be critical to understand how to reach those who either “were not offered or refused to take part in the program.”

The authors of the paper and Dr. Faro had no disclosures.

Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) is the most extreme antiabortion legislation currently in effect in the United States. SB8 was introduced by the Texas legislature on March 11, 2021, and signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 19, 2021.¹ The law went into effect on September 1, 2021, despite an appeal to the US Supreme Court to block the law until the courts could weigh in on its constitutionality. The bill prohibits all abortion care in the state of Texas after cardiac activity has been identified, typically at 6 weeks’ gestational age. The majority of pregnant people may be unaware at that point that they are pregnant, particularly if their menstrual cycles are irregular.² An estimated 85% of abortions in Texas occur after the 6-week mark, leaving millions of Texans without the constitutionally protected rights assured to them in Roe v Wade.^3,4 This has and will disproportionately impact communities of color and low-income people seeking abortion care.

SB8 does not contain exceptions in case of a pregnancy that results from rape, sexual assault, or incest, but it does contain an exemption for abortion care because of a medical emergency, as approved by a physician. The physician is required to note the medical emergency in the patient’s chart, stating that the “medical emergency necessitated the abortion” and “prevented compliance” with SB8.⁵ In practice, this exception is so vague as to leave clinicians concerned that routine management of medical conditions and complications, as in ectopic pregnancy, places them at risk of legal action against them and their colleagues should they authorize abortion care.

In Texas, abortion restrictions are nothing new. Texas patients are already subject to a 2-trip requirement: Since 2011 they have been required to have a mandatory ultrasound in one visit and schedule a second visit, 24 hours later, for the procedure.⁶ As of 2003, Texas law also mandates that providers discuss with patients the medical risks, adoption alternatives, and developmental stages of the pregnancy.⁶ There are no medical indications for either of these laws, and their impact is to delay patient care. Unfortunately, laws such as these have been increasingly common in the past decade, with 106 abortion restrictions enacted in 2021 alone.^7,8

What is different about SB8?

SB8 is unique in that it deputizes private citizens to enforce the law. This represents a major change in the antichoice movement’s tactics, as previous bills have made violations a criminal offense. SB8 allows a citizen to sue anyone associated with abortion care, with a minimum penalty of $10,000. In practice, a citizen of another state, who has no connection to the patient receiving care, can sue under this Texas law.⁹ Anyone “aiding and abetting a violation” can be found liable for up to 4 years after the date of care, including, for example, a ride-hailing driver called to ferry the patient to the appointment, the health care team providing abortion care, or insurance companies covering the costs of care. In addition, anyone found guilty of “aiding and abetting” a violation of the bill is responsible for all costs and attorney fees associated with the civil case.^5,10

Furthermore, SB8 outlines defenses that cannot be used to preempt a finding of civil liability, including “ignorance or mistake of the law,” “belief of the law’s unconstitutionality,” and “consent of the [patient] to the abortion.”⁵ This additional layer of restriction makes it difficult to appeal the bill and convolutes an individual’s ability to challenge the law. The law also forbids the state (Texas), a state official, a court, or a district attorney from intervening on behalf of the law—upending typical courses of appeal. This legislation also complicates both federal and state intervention regarding SB8’s constitutionality, as the state has no role in enforcing the law as it is written.⁵

Continue to: What has been the response?...

What has been the response?

As expected, abortion foes reacted positively to SB8, while abortion advocates expressed outrage that the law went into effect. Many were additionally confused that the Supreme Court chose not to intervene to stay the law while the courts adjudicate its constitutionality, as is typical in other cases concerning abortion restrictions.¹¹

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court allowed SB8 to take effect on September 1, issuing its decision on the “Shadow Docket.” As such, a decision was handed down on an expedited timeline in response to an emergency appeal without any oral arguments or a lengthy opinion explaining the ruling.^11,12 The majority delivered a brief, one-paragraph order summarizing their decision, explaining that their refusal to grant the injunction was not a commentary on the law’s constitutionality. The High Court stated that they could not initially comment on the law’s constitutionality before it went into effect, citing that per the law, the state had no role in enforcement, and at the time, no private actions had yet been brought under the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating, “The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”¹³

Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to act, US Attorney General Merrick Garland commented that “the Justice Department was evaluating all options to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons.” Just one week later, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, arguing that SB8 was unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause (federal law takes precedence over state law) and the Fourteenth Amendment.^14,15

On October 6, in response to the Department of Justice’s challenge, District Judge Robert Pitman issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of SB8. In a 113-page ruling, Judge Pitman explained that “a person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established.” Judge Pittman held SB8 unconstitutional, stating, “Women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution... Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”¹⁶

Just 48 hours after the injunction issued by Judge Pitman, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction, and SB8 went back into effect while litigation on its constitutionality proceeded.^2,17 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is widely considered to be one of the most conservative courts in the country.¹⁸

On October 15, 2021, the Department of Justice appealed the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision and asked the US Supreme Court to intervene, requesting that the Court issue an emergency halt to the law.^19,20 On October 22, 2021, the Court declined to halt the law but scheduled oral arguments on the case for November 1, 2021. This is a stunningly fast briefing schedule for a case of such constitutional importance.

Given the legal back-and-forth, many clinicians are not providing abortion care in Texas as the litigation unfolds. SB8 permits retroactive enforcement, mandating that those “aiding and abetting” of abortion care may be civilly liable for up to 4 years after providing the care.⁵

Continue to: Potential outcomes, and what comes next...

Potential outcomes, and what comes next

Since the ascension of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the High Court, there has been a nationwide increase in antiabortion legislation. Between January and July 2021, more than 90 abortion restrictions were passed, more restrictions in any single year since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.⁸ In the past decade, more than 500 laws that restrict abortion have been passed across the United States, and studies indicate that 87% to 90% of American counties today are without a single abortion provider.^21,22 Abortion supporters are particularly concerned about the future of Roe v Wade, with a conservative Supreme Court set to hear the challenge to SB8 on November 1, 2021, followed by a second case from Mississippi challenging the constitutionality of a 15-week ban on abortion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (read about this case in “Supreme Court Case: Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization: What you need to know,” at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/245853/practice-management/supreme-court-case-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health).^23,24

At the time of this article writing, we do not know how the Supreme Court will rule on the variety of challenges to the right to privacy. That said, advocates believe it is safe to assume that the landscape of abortion access is likely to change dramatically in the coming year.

Action items: What can you do?

It is important to remember that not only does SB8 severely limit access to safe and legal abortion but also it makes pregnancy dangerous for all pregnant people in Texas and places doubt in providers’ minds on how to manage medical care for their patients.

On the federal level, many advocates are focusing on codifying the right to choose and protecting abortion care from medically unnecessary restrictions. The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (WHPA) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and it passed in the US House of Representatives in a 218-211 vote.²⁵ WHPA now awaits a vote in a deeply divided US Senate. Although WHPA has wide popular support—an estimated 61% of Americans support the legislation—its future is unclear in the Senate.²⁶ Currently, WHPA has 48 supporters, all Democrats. You can contact your legislators via the links below to encourage them to pass WHPA. If you have friends and colleagues in states in which the Senator does not support WHPA, forward these links and encourage them to sign on: 

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/take-action/
• Physicians for Reproductive Rights: https://secure.everyaction.com/p/MOuAyW7F3Ua-FmaGtGD4Kw2
• Center for Reproductive Rights: https://reproductiverights.org/whpa-take-action/

Many also are organizing a crowdfunding campaign to support abortion providers as well as legislative resources. Additional groups to donate specifically to SB8 efforts include²⁷:

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/whpa-faqs/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas/senate-bill-8
• Texas Equal Access Fund: https://secure.everyaction.com/ztEh8Qeh80-k2k1Yuo5gTw2
• ActBlue Charities: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/txfunds

Furthermore, it is more important than ever to support work within states to support abortion rights. State-specific abortion advocacy groups and their efforts include:

• Avow Foundation for Abortion Access: https://avowtexas.org/support/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas
• NARAL Pro-Choice Texas: https://prochoicetexas.org/
• Texas Abortion Access Network: https://txabortionaccessnetwork.org/

Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) is the most extreme antiabortion legislation currently in effect in the United States. SB8 was introduced by the Texas legislature on March 11, 2021, and signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 19, 2021.¹ The law went into effect on September 1, 2021, despite an appeal to the US Supreme Court to block the law until the courts could weigh in on its constitutionality. The bill prohibits all abortion care in the state of Texas after cardiac activity has been identified, typically at 6 weeks’ gestational age. The majority of pregnant people may be unaware at that point that they are pregnant, particularly if their menstrual cycles are irregular.² An estimated 85% of abortions in Texas occur after the 6-week mark, leaving millions of Texans without the constitutionally protected rights assured to them in Roe v Wade.^3,4 This has and will disproportionately impact communities of color and low-income people seeking abortion care.

SB8 does not contain exceptions in case of a pregnancy that results from rape, sexual assault, or incest, but it does contain an exemption for abortion care because of a medical emergency, as approved by a physician. The physician is required to note the medical emergency in the patient’s chart, stating that the “medical emergency necessitated the abortion” and “prevented compliance” with SB8.⁵ In practice, this exception is so vague as to leave clinicians concerned that routine management of medical conditions and complications, as in ectopic pregnancy, places them at risk of legal action against them and their colleagues should they authorize abortion care.

In Texas, abortion restrictions are nothing new. Texas patients are already subject to a 2-trip requirement: Since 2011 they have been required to have a mandatory ultrasound in one visit and schedule a second visit, 24 hours later, for the procedure.⁶ As of 2003, Texas law also mandates that providers discuss with patients the medical risks, adoption alternatives, and developmental stages of the pregnancy.⁶ There are no medical indications for either of these laws, and their impact is to delay patient care. Unfortunately, laws such as these have been increasingly common in the past decade, with 106 abortion restrictions enacted in 2021 alone.^7,8

What is different about SB8?

SB8 is unique in that it deputizes private citizens to enforce the law. This represents a major change in the antichoice movement’s tactics, as previous bills have made violations a criminal offense. SB8 allows a citizen to sue anyone associated with abortion care, with a minimum penalty of $10,000. In practice, a citizen of another state, who has no connection to the patient receiving care, can sue under this Texas law.⁹ Anyone “aiding and abetting a violation” can be found liable for up to 4 years after the date of care, including, for example, a ride-hailing driver called to ferry the patient to the appointment, the health care team providing abortion care, or insurance companies covering the costs of care. In addition, anyone found guilty of “aiding and abetting” a violation of the bill is responsible for all costs and attorney fees associated with the civil case.^5,10

Furthermore, SB8 outlines defenses that cannot be used to preempt a finding of civil liability, including “ignorance or mistake of the law,” “belief of the law’s unconstitutionality,” and “consent of the [patient] to the abortion.”⁵ This additional layer of restriction makes it difficult to appeal the bill and convolutes an individual’s ability to challenge the law. The law also forbids the state (Texas), a state official, a court, or a district attorney from intervening on behalf of the law—upending typical courses of appeal. This legislation also complicates both federal and state intervention regarding SB8’s constitutionality, as the state has no role in enforcing the law as it is written.⁵

Continue to: What has been the response?...

What has been the response?

As expected, abortion foes reacted positively to SB8, while abortion advocates expressed outrage that the law went into effect. Many were additionally confused that the Supreme Court chose not to intervene to stay the law while the courts adjudicate its constitutionality, as is typical in other cases concerning abortion restrictions.¹¹

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court allowed SB8 to take effect on September 1, issuing its decision on the “Shadow Docket.” As such, a decision was handed down on an expedited timeline in response to an emergency appeal without any oral arguments or a lengthy opinion explaining the ruling.^11,12 The majority delivered a brief, one-paragraph order summarizing their decision, explaining that their refusal to grant the injunction was not a commentary on the law’s constitutionality. The High Court stated that they could not initially comment on the law’s constitutionality before it went into effect, citing that per the law, the state had no role in enforcement, and at the time, no private actions had yet been brought under the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating, “The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”¹³

Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to act, US Attorney General Merrick Garland commented that “the Justice Department was evaluating all options to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons.” Just one week later, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, arguing that SB8 was unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause (federal law takes precedence over state law) and the Fourteenth Amendment.^14,15

On October 6, in response to the Department of Justice’s challenge, District Judge Robert Pitman issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of SB8. In a 113-page ruling, Judge Pitman explained that “a person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established.” Judge Pittman held SB8 unconstitutional, stating, “Women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution... Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”¹⁶

Just 48 hours after the injunction issued by Judge Pitman, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction, and SB8 went back into effect while litigation on its constitutionality proceeded.^2,17 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is widely considered to be one of the most conservative courts in the country.¹⁸

On October 15, 2021, the Department of Justice appealed the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision and asked the US Supreme Court to intervene, requesting that the Court issue an emergency halt to the law.^19,20 On October 22, 2021, the Court declined to halt the law but scheduled oral arguments on the case for November 1, 2021. This is a stunningly fast briefing schedule for a case of such constitutional importance.

Given the legal back-and-forth, many clinicians are not providing abortion care in Texas as the litigation unfolds. SB8 permits retroactive enforcement, mandating that those “aiding and abetting” of abortion care may be civilly liable for up to 4 years after providing the care.⁵

Continue to: Potential outcomes, and what comes next...

Potential outcomes, and what comes next

Since the ascension of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the High Court, there has been a nationwide increase in antiabortion legislation. Between January and July 2021, more than 90 abortion restrictions were passed, more restrictions in any single year since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.⁸ In the past decade, more than 500 laws that restrict abortion have been passed across the United States, and studies indicate that 87% to 90% of American counties today are without a single abortion provider.^21,22 Abortion supporters are particularly concerned about the future of Roe v Wade, with a conservative Supreme Court set to hear the challenge to SB8 on November 1, 2021, followed by a second case from Mississippi challenging the constitutionality of a 15-week ban on abortion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (read about this case in “Supreme Court Case: Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization: What you need to know,” at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/245853/practice-management/supreme-court-case-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health).^23,24

At the time of this article writing, we do not know how the Supreme Court will rule on the variety of challenges to the right to privacy. That said, advocates believe it is safe to assume that the landscape of abortion access is likely to change dramatically in the coming year.

Action items: What can you do?

It is important to remember that not only does SB8 severely limit access to safe and legal abortion but also it makes pregnancy dangerous for all pregnant people in Texas and places doubt in providers’ minds on how to manage medical care for their patients.

On the federal level, many advocates are focusing on codifying the right to choose and protecting abortion care from medically unnecessary restrictions. The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (WHPA) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and it passed in the US House of Representatives in a 218-211 vote.²⁵ WHPA now awaits a vote in a deeply divided US Senate. Although WHPA has wide popular support—an estimated 61% of Americans support the legislation—its future is unclear in the Senate.²⁶ Currently, WHPA has 48 supporters, all Democrats. You can contact your legislators via the links below to encourage them to pass WHPA. If you have friends and colleagues in states in which the Senator does not support WHPA, forward these links and encourage them to sign on: 

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/take-action/
• Physicians for Reproductive Rights: https://secure.everyaction.com/p/MOuAyW7F3Ua-FmaGtGD4Kw2
• Center for Reproductive Rights: https://reproductiverights.org/whpa-take-action/

Many also are organizing a crowdfunding campaign to support abortion providers as well as legislative resources. Additional groups to donate specifically to SB8 efforts include²⁷:

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/whpa-faqs/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas/senate-bill-8
• Texas Equal Access Fund: https://secure.everyaction.com/ztEh8Qeh80-k2k1Yuo5gTw2
• ActBlue Charities: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/txfunds

Furthermore, it is more important than ever to support work within states to support abortion rights. State-specific abortion advocacy groups and their efforts include:

• Avow Foundation for Abortion Access: https://avowtexas.org/support/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas
• NARAL Pro-Choice Texas: https://prochoicetexas.org/
• Texas Abortion Access Network: https://txabortionaccessnetwork.org/

Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) is the most extreme antiabortion legislation currently in effect in the United States. SB8 was introduced by the Texas legislature on March 11, 2021, and signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 19, 2021.¹ The law went into effect on September 1, 2021, despite an appeal to the US Supreme Court to block the law until the courts could weigh in on its constitutionality. The bill prohibits all abortion care in the state of Texas after cardiac activity has been identified, typically at 6 weeks’ gestational age. The majority of pregnant people may be unaware at that point that they are pregnant, particularly if their menstrual cycles are irregular.² An estimated 85% of abortions in Texas occur after the 6-week mark, leaving millions of Texans without the constitutionally protected rights assured to them in Roe v Wade.^3,4 This has and will disproportionately impact communities of color and low-income people seeking abortion care.

SB8 does not contain exceptions in case of a pregnancy that results from rape, sexual assault, or incest, but it does contain an exemption for abortion care because of a medical emergency, as approved by a physician. The physician is required to note the medical emergency in the patient’s chart, stating that the “medical emergency necessitated the abortion” and “prevented compliance” with SB8.⁵ In practice, this exception is so vague as to leave clinicians concerned that routine management of medical conditions and complications, as in ectopic pregnancy, places them at risk of legal action against them and their colleagues should they authorize abortion care.

In Texas, abortion restrictions are nothing new. Texas patients are already subject to a 2-trip requirement: Since 2011 they have been required to have a mandatory ultrasound in one visit and schedule a second visit, 24 hours later, for the procedure.⁶ As of 2003, Texas law also mandates that providers discuss with patients the medical risks, adoption alternatives, and developmental stages of the pregnancy.⁶ There are no medical indications for either of these laws, and their impact is to delay patient care. Unfortunately, laws such as these have been increasingly common in the past decade, with 106 abortion restrictions enacted in 2021 alone.^7,8

What is different about SB8?

SB8 is unique in that it deputizes private citizens to enforce the law. This represents a major change in the antichoice movement’s tactics, as previous bills have made violations a criminal offense. SB8 allows a citizen to sue anyone associated with abortion care, with a minimum penalty of $10,000. In practice, a citizen of another state, who has no connection to the patient receiving care, can sue under this Texas law.⁹ Anyone “aiding and abetting a violation” can be found liable for up to 4 years after the date of care, including, for example, a ride-hailing driver called to ferry the patient to the appointment, the health care team providing abortion care, or insurance companies covering the costs of care. In addition, anyone found guilty of “aiding and abetting” a violation of the bill is responsible for all costs and attorney fees associated with the civil case.^5,10

Furthermore, SB8 outlines defenses that cannot be used to preempt a finding of civil liability, including “ignorance or mistake of the law,” “belief of the law’s unconstitutionality,” and “consent of the [patient] to the abortion.”⁵ This additional layer of restriction makes it difficult to appeal the bill and convolutes an individual’s ability to challenge the law. The law also forbids the state (Texas), a state official, a court, or a district attorney from intervening on behalf of the law—upending typical courses of appeal. This legislation also complicates both federal and state intervention regarding SB8’s constitutionality, as the state has no role in enforcing the law as it is written.⁵

Continue to: What has been the response?...

What has been the response?

As expected, abortion foes reacted positively to SB8, while abortion advocates expressed outrage that the law went into effect. Many were additionally confused that the Supreme Court chose not to intervene to stay the law while the courts adjudicate its constitutionality, as is typical in other cases concerning abortion restrictions.¹¹

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court allowed SB8 to take effect on September 1, issuing its decision on the “Shadow Docket.” As such, a decision was handed down on an expedited timeline in response to an emergency appeal without any oral arguments or a lengthy opinion explaining the ruling.^11,12 The majority delivered a brief, one-paragraph order summarizing their decision, explaining that their refusal to grant the injunction was not a commentary on the law’s constitutionality. The High Court stated that they could not initially comment on the law’s constitutionality before it went into effect, citing that per the law, the state had no role in enforcement, and at the time, no private actions had yet been brought under the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating, “The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”¹³

Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to act, US Attorney General Merrick Garland commented that “the Justice Department was evaluating all options to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons.” Just one week later, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, arguing that SB8 was unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause (federal law takes precedence over state law) and the Fourteenth Amendment.^14,15

On October 6, in response to the Department of Justice’s challenge, District Judge Robert Pitman issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of SB8. In a 113-page ruling, Judge Pitman explained that “a person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established.” Judge Pittman held SB8 unconstitutional, stating, “Women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution... Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”¹⁶

Just 48 hours after the injunction issued by Judge Pitman, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction, and SB8 went back into effect while litigation on its constitutionality proceeded.^2,17 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is widely considered to be one of the most conservative courts in the country.¹⁸

On October 15, 2021, the Department of Justice appealed the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision and asked the US Supreme Court to intervene, requesting that the Court issue an emergency halt to the law.^19,20 On October 22, 2021, the Court declined to halt the law but scheduled oral arguments on the case for November 1, 2021. This is a stunningly fast briefing schedule for a case of such constitutional importance.

Given the legal back-and-forth, many clinicians are not providing abortion care in Texas as the litigation unfolds. SB8 permits retroactive enforcement, mandating that those “aiding and abetting” of abortion care may be civilly liable for up to 4 years after providing the care.⁵

Continue to: Potential outcomes, and what comes next...

Potential outcomes, and what comes next

Since the ascension of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the High Court, there has been a nationwide increase in antiabortion legislation. Between January and July 2021, more than 90 abortion restrictions were passed, more restrictions in any single year since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.⁸ In the past decade, more than 500 laws that restrict abortion have been passed across the United States, and studies indicate that 87% to 90% of American counties today are without a single abortion provider.^21,22 Abortion supporters are particularly concerned about the future of Roe v Wade, with a conservative Supreme Court set to hear the challenge to SB8 on November 1, 2021, followed by a second case from Mississippi challenging the constitutionality of a 15-week ban on abortion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (read about this case in “Supreme Court Case: Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization: What you need to know,” at https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/245853/practice-management/supreme-court-case-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health).^23,24

At the time of this article writing, we do not know how the Supreme Court will rule on the variety of challenges to the right to privacy. That said, advocates believe it is safe to assume that the landscape of abortion access is likely to change dramatically in the coming year.

Action items: What can you do?

It is important to remember that not only does SB8 severely limit access to safe and legal abortion but also it makes pregnancy dangerous for all pregnant people in Texas and places doubt in providers’ minds on how to manage medical care for their patients.

On the federal level, many advocates are focusing on codifying the right to choose and protecting abortion care from medically unnecessary restrictions. The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (WHPA) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and it passed in the US House of Representatives in a 218-211 vote.²⁵ WHPA now awaits a vote in a deeply divided US Senate. Although WHPA has wide popular support—an estimated 61% of Americans support the legislation—its future is unclear in the Senate.²⁶ Currently, WHPA has 48 supporters, all Democrats. You can contact your legislators via the links below to encourage them to pass WHPA. If you have friends and colleagues in states in which the Senator does not support WHPA, forward these links and encourage them to sign on: 

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/take-action/
• Physicians for Reproductive Rights: https://secure.everyaction.com/p/MOuAyW7F3Ua-FmaGtGD4Kw2
• Center for Reproductive Rights: https://reproductiverights.org/whpa-take-action/

Many also are organizing a crowdfunding campaign to support abortion providers as well as legislative resources. Additional groups to donate specifically to SB8 efforts include²⁷:

• Equal Access to Abortion, Everywhere: https://actforwomen.org/whpa-faqs/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas/senate-bill-8
• Texas Equal Access Fund: https://secure.everyaction.com/ztEh8Qeh80-k2k1Yuo5gTw2
• ActBlue Charities: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/txfunds

Furthermore, it is more important than ever to support work within states to support abortion rights. State-specific abortion advocacy groups and their efforts include:

• Avow Foundation for Abortion Access: https://avowtexas.org/support/
• Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-texas
• NARAL Pro-Choice Texas: https://prochoicetexas.org/
• Texas Abortion Access Network: https://txabortionaccessnetwork.org/

Treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis and renal disease with the oral C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan (Tavneos, ChemoCentryx) provides significant recovery of kidney function, compared with prednisone, particularly in patients with severe kidney disease, novel research indicates.

The new analysis underscores that “the real value of avacopan is that we can now expect to get our patients steroid free,” said first author David R.W. Jayne, MD, a professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge (England), when presenting the findings at the American Society of Nephrology’s Kidney Week 2021.

“Whether or not we’re brave enough to initiate treatment without steroids, I think that will perhaps come with some patient experience,” he added.

The findings are from a subanalysis of renal effects in the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, which was published in February 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine and included 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis.

The trial in large part led to the U.S. approval of avacopan by the Food and Drug Administration in October as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids.

The approval was greeted with enthusiasm as suggesting a much-needed option to help reduce, or even potentially eliminate, the need for glucocorticoids and their side effects. Other agents included in treatment regimens for ANCA-associated vasculitis include cyclophosphamide and rituximab.

Dr. Jayne emphasized that, before avacopan, treatment options had been limited.

“There is nothing else new in the clinic apart from rituximab, which we have now been using for almost 20 years,” he said in an interview. “Avacopan is new, the mode of action is different from any drugs in use at the moment, and the speed of action is very quick.”

The need to more closely investigate the trial’s renal outcomes in this new analysis was important because the high mortality rates in ANCA-associated vasculitis – a rare systemic autoimmune disease causing overactivation of complement resulting in inflammation of small blood vessels – is largely driven by those with MPO and PR3 autoantibody renal vasculitis, Dr. Jayne explained.

Commenting on the study, J. Charles Jennette, MD, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine and professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the new findings on renal outcomes, such as proteinuria, may offer key insights on avacopan’s efficacy.

“To me, the most impressive outcome of the ADVOCATE Phase 3 trial was the more rapid reduction in hematuria and proteinuria with avacopan compared to conventional prednisone therapy,” he said in an interview.
 

Recovery of eGFR with avacopan best in those with severe renal disease

In the trial, patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis were randomized 1:1 to treatment with oral avacopan 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone on a tapering schedule.

All patients also received background immunosuppression – about two-thirds received rituximab and a third received cyclophosphamide – followed by azathioprine.

The main study results showed similar rates of remission in both groups at week 26 and a superior remission rate with avacopan, in terms of sustained remission, at week 52 (65.7% vs. 54.9%; P < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in the trial had renal involvement of ANCA vasculitis, the focus of the new analysis, and they had a baseline mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Among those with renal involvement, patients treated with avacopan had a significantly greater eGFR recovery, compared with the prednisone group at week 26 (P = .046) and week 52 (P < .029).

The strongest improvements were observed among patients with moderate to severe kidney damage, who had a mean eGFR of 21 mL/min per 1.73 m2 at baseline. Among those patients, the mean increase in eGFR was 13.7 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the avacopan-treated group (n = 52) versus 8.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the prednisone group (n = 48; P < .01) by week 52.

Improvements in urinary albumin:creatinine ratios (UACR) of as much as 40% were also observed in the avacopan group within the first 4 weeks of treatment, while no changes were observed in the same period in the prednisone group.

In other findings, the study also showed more rapid declines in proteinuria within 4 weeks in the avacopan group, and fewer patients had hematuria and there were greater reductions in MCP-1 in avacopan-treated patients at week 52, Dr. Jayne reported.

In terms of safety, there were no differences between the groups, with trends of fewer deaths and severe adverse events in the avacopan group.

“We found that the improved recovery of eGFR with avacopan was accentuated among those with more severe renal disease,” Dr. Jayne said.

He noted that, while the study’s aim was for the avacopan group to be steroid free, the patients received brief, reduced doses of about a third of the normal oral steroid dose early in the trial. However, using a Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index, the authors found those in the avacopan group did have fewer glucocorticoid-related adverse events.

Future issues to be examined include what happens when avacopan is discontinued and whether there will be a high relapse rate, Dr. Jayne noted.

Overall, however, “we anticipate that with longer-term follow-up, this better eGFR recovery will have a [favorable] effect on kidney failure and potentially mortality risk in these patients,” he concluded.

Targeted therapy is good for patients and doctors

Expanding upon his comments regarding the new drug, Dr. Jennette said it implies “that the C5a receptor inhibitor was targeting an event that blocks injury more quickly and effectively than prednisone.”

“This may be because prednisone has more complex pharmacodynamics and less targeted effects than a C5a receptor inhibitor,” he said.

Overall, the findings bode well for a potentially beneficial therapy, he added. “We have entered a new era of more targeted therapies, for example, targeted B-cell therapy using an anti-CD20 antibody, and targeted complement-mediated injury therapy using C5a receptor inhibitor.”

“The validation of this targeted therapy to block complement-mediated autoimmune inflammatory injury is another advance toward targeted precision therapy versus empirical therapy. This will be good for the doctors and good for the patients,” Dr. Jennette concluded.

The study was funded by ChemoCentryx. Dr. Jayne has reported receiving grants and/or consulting for AstraZeneca, ChemoCentryx, GlaxoSmithKline, MiroBio, Vifor, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Jennette has received funding from ChemoCentryx for preclinical validation studies of avacopan in a mouse model of ANCA glomerulonephritis.

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

Treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis and renal disease with the oral C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan (Tavneos, ChemoCentryx) provides significant recovery of kidney function, compared with prednisone, particularly in patients with severe kidney disease, novel research indicates.

The new analysis underscores that “the real value of avacopan is that we can now expect to get our patients steroid free,” said first author David R.W. Jayne, MD, a professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge (England), when presenting the findings at the American Society of Nephrology’s Kidney Week 2021.

“Whether or not we’re brave enough to initiate treatment without steroids, I think that will perhaps come with some patient experience,” he added.

The findings are from a subanalysis of renal effects in the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, which was published in February 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine and included 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis.

The trial in large part led to the U.S. approval of avacopan by the Food and Drug Administration in October as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids.

The approval was greeted with enthusiasm as suggesting a much-needed option to help reduce, or even potentially eliminate, the need for glucocorticoids and their side effects. Other agents included in treatment regimens for ANCA-associated vasculitis include cyclophosphamide and rituximab.

Dr. Jayne emphasized that, before avacopan, treatment options had been limited.

“There is nothing else new in the clinic apart from rituximab, which we have now been using for almost 20 years,” he said in an interview. “Avacopan is new, the mode of action is different from any drugs in use at the moment, and the speed of action is very quick.”

The need to more closely investigate the trial’s renal outcomes in this new analysis was important because the high mortality rates in ANCA-associated vasculitis – a rare systemic autoimmune disease causing overactivation of complement resulting in inflammation of small blood vessels – is largely driven by those with MPO and PR3 autoantibody renal vasculitis, Dr. Jayne explained.

Commenting on the study, J. Charles Jennette, MD, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine and professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the new findings on renal outcomes, such as proteinuria, may offer key insights on avacopan’s efficacy.

“To me, the most impressive outcome of the ADVOCATE Phase 3 trial was the more rapid reduction in hematuria and proteinuria with avacopan compared to conventional prednisone therapy,” he said in an interview.
 

Recovery of eGFR with avacopan best in those with severe renal disease

In the trial, patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis were randomized 1:1 to treatment with oral avacopan 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone on a tapering schedule.

All patients also received background immunosuppression – about two-thirds received rituximab and a third received cyclophosphamide – followed by azathioprine.

The main study results showed similar rates of remission in both groups at week 26 and a superior remission rate with avacopan, in terms of sustained remission, at week 52 (65.7% vs. 54.9%; P < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in the trial had renal involvement of ANCA vasculitis, the focus of the new analysis, and they had a baseline mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Among those with renal involvement, patients treated with avacopan had a significantly greater eGFR recovery, compared with the prednisone group at week 26 (P = .046) and week 52 (P < .029).

The strongest improvements were observed among patients with moderate to severe kidney damage, who had a mean eGFR of 21 mL/min per 1.73 m2 at baseline. Among those patients, the mean increase in eGFR was 13.7 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the avacopan-treated group (n = 52) versus 8.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the prednisone group (n = 48; P < .01) by week 52.

Improvements in urinary albumin:creatinine ratios (UACR) of as much as 40% were also observed in the avacopan group within the first 4 weeks of treatment, while no changes were observed in the same period in the prednisone group.

In other findings, the study also showed more rapid declines in proteinuria within 4 weeks in the avacopan group, and fewer patients had hematuria and there were greater reductions in MCP-1 in avacopan-treated patients at week 52, Dr. Jayne reported.

In terms of safety, there were no differences between the groups, with trends of fewer deaths and severe adverse events in the avacopan group.

“We found that the improved recovery of eGFR with avacopan was accentuated among those with more severe renal disease,” Dr. Jayne said.

He noted that, while the study’s aim was for the avacopan group to be steroid free, the patients received brief, reduced doses of about a third of the normal oral steroid dose early in the trial. However, using a Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index, the authors found those in the avacopan group did have fewer glucocorticoid-related adverse events.

Future issues to be examined include what happens when avacopan is discontinued and whether there will be a high relapse rate, Dr. Jayne noted.

Overall, however, “we anticipate that with longer-term follow-up, this better eGFR recovery will have a [favorable] effect on kidney failure and potentially mortality risk in these patients,” he concluded.

Targeted therapy is good for patients and doctors

Expanding upon his comments regarding the new drug, Dr. Jennette said it implies “that the C5a receptor inhibitor was targeting an event that blocks injury more quickly and effectively than prednisone.”

“This may be because prednisone has more complex pharmacodynamics and less targeted effects than a C5a receptor inhibitor,” he said.

Overall, the findings bode well for a potentially beneficial therapy, he added. “We have entered a new era of more targeted therapies, for example, targeted B-cell therapy using an anti-CD20 antibody, and targeted complement-mediated injury therapy using C5a receptor inhibitor.”

“The validation of this targeted therapy to block complement-mediated autoimmune inflammatory injury is another advance toward targeted precision therapy versus empirical therapy. This will be good for the doctors and good for the patients,” Dr. Jennette concluded.

The study was funded by ChemoCentryx. Dr. Jayne has reported receiving grants and/or consulting for AstraZeneca, ChemoCentryx, GlaxoSmithKline, MiroBio, Vifor, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Jennette has received funding from ChemoCentryx for preclinical validation studies of avacopan in a mouse model of ANCA glomerulonephritis.

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

Treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis and renal disease with the oral C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan (Tavneos, ChemoCentryx) provides significant recovery of kidney function, compared with prednisone, particularly in patients with severe kidney disease, novel research indicates.

The new analysis underscores that “the real value of avacopan is that we can now expect to get our patients steroid free,” said first author David R.W. Jayne, MD, a professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge (England), when presenting the findings at the American Society of Nephrology’s Kidney Week 2021.

“Whether or not we’re brave enough to initiate treatment without steroids, I think that will perhaps come with some patient experience,” he added.

The findings are from a subanalysis of renal effects in the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, which was published in February 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine and included 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis.

The trial in large part led to the U.S. approval of avacopan by the Food and Drug Administration in October as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids.

The approval was greeted with enthusiasm as suggesting a much-needed option to help reduce, or even potentially eliminate, the need for glucocorticoids and their side effects. Other agents included in treatment regimens for ANCA-associated vasculitis include cyclophosphamide and rituximab.

Dr. Jayne emphasized that, before avacopan, treatment options had been limited.

“There is nothing else new in the clinic apart from rituximab, which we have now been using for almost 20 years,” he said in an interview. “Avacopan is new, the mode of action is different from any drugs in use at the moment, and the speed of action is very quick.”

The need to more closely investigate the trial’s renal outcomes in this new analysis was important because the high mortality rates in ANCA-associated vasculitis – a rare systemic autoimmune disease causing overactivation of complement resulting in inflammation of small blood vessels – is largely driven by those with MPO and PR3 autoantibody renal vasculitis, Dr. Jayne explained.

Commenting on the study, J. Charles Jennette, MD, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine and professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the new findings on renal outcomes, such as proteinuria, may offer key insights on avacopan’s efficacy.

“To me, the most impressive outcome of the ADVOCATE Phase 3 trial was the more rapid reduction in hematuria and proteinuria with avacopan compared to conventional prednisone therapy,” he said in an interview.
 

Recovery of eGFR with avacopan best in those with severe renal disease

In the trial, patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis were randomized 1:1 to treatment with oral avacopan 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone on a tapering schedule.

All patients also received background immunosuppression – about two-thirds received rituximab and a third received cyclophosphamide – followed by azathioprine.

The main study results showed similar rates of remission in both groups at week 26 and a superior remission rate with avacopan, in terms of sustained remission, at week 52 (65.7% vs. 54.9%; P < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in the trial had renal involvement of ANCA vasculitis, the focus of the new analysis, and they had a baseline mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Among those with renal involvement, patients treated with avacopan had a significantly greater eGFR recovery, compared with the prednisone group at week 26 (P = .046) and week 52 (P < .029).

The strongest improvements were observed among patients with moderate to severe kidney damage, who had a mean eGFR of 21 mL/min per 1.73 m2 at baseline. Among those patients, the mean increase in eGFR was 13.7 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the avacopan-treated group (n = 52) versus 8.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the prednisone group (n = 48; P < .01) by week 52.

Improvements in urinary albumin:creatinine ratios (UACR) of as much as 40% were also observed in the avacopan group within the first 4 weeks of treatment, while no changes were observed in the same period in the prednisone group.

In other findings, the study also showed more rapid declines in proteinuria within 4 weeks in the avacopan group, and fewer patients had hematuria and there were greater reductions in MCP-1 in avacopan-treated patients at week 52, Dr. Jayne reported.

In terms of safety, there were no differences between the groups, with trends of fewer deaths and severe adverse events in the avacopan group.

“We found that the improved recovery of eGFR with avacopan was accentuated among those with more severe renal disease,” Dr. Jayne said.

He noted that, while the study’s aim was for the avacopan group to be steroid free, the patients received brief, reduced doses of about a third of the normal oral steroid dose early in the trial. However, using a Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index, the authors found those in the avacopan group did have fewer glucocorticoid-related adverse events.

Future issues to be examined include what happens when avacopan is discontinued and whether there will be a high relapse rate, Dr. Jayne noted.

Overall, however, “we anticipate that with longer-term follow-up, this better eGFR recovery will have a [favorable] effect on kidney failure and potentially mortality risk in these patients,” he concluded.

Targeted therapy is good for patients and doctors

Expanding upon his comments regarding the new drug, Dr. Jennette said it implies “that the C5a receptor inhibitor was targeting an event that blocks injury more quickly and effectively than prednisone.”

“This may be because prednisone has more complex pharmacodynamics and less targeted effects than a C5a receptor inhibitor,” he said.

Overall, the findings bode well for a potentially beneficial therapy, he added. “We have entered a new era of more targeted therapies, for example, targeted B-cell therapy using an anti-CD20 antibody, and targeted complement-mediated injury therapy using C5a receptor inhibitor.”

“The validation of this targeted therapy to block complement-mediated autoimmune inflammatory injury is another advance toward targeted precision therapy versus empirical therapy. This will be good for the doctors and good for the patients,” Dr. Jennette concluded.

The study was funded by ChemoCentryx. Dr. Jayne has reported receiving grants and/or consulting for AstraZeneca, ChemoCentryx, GlaxoSmithKline, MiroBio, Vifor, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Jennette has received funding from ChemoCentryx for preclinical validation studies of avacopan in a mouse model of ANCA glomerulonephritis.

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

In men with a normal waist circumference, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) metrics were positively associated with serum triglycerides, according to results of a study published in Nature and Science of Sleep (2021:13 1771-82).

Layla B. Guscoth, MD, of the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia, and colleagues assessed unselected male community-dwelling participants in the Men Androgen Inflammation Lifestyle Environment and Stress (MAILES) and the Florey Adelaide Male Aging Study (FAMAS) studies.

They examined the association of OSA and nocturnal hypoxemia with serum lipid profiles, and suggested that the cardiometabolic risk profiles of healthy weight individuals with OSA require clinical attention, according to the researchers.

The partial or complete obstruction of upper airways found in the OSA syndrome results in intermittent hypoxia, accompanied variably by sleep fragmentation and daytime sleepiness. While the prevalence of moderate to severe OSA was 49.7% in the Swiss HypnoLaus cohort, it was 74.7% in men aged 40 or older (or having OSA syndrome according to ICD-3 criteria). Dr. Guscoth and colleagues point out, however, that OSA is frequently underdiagnosed or unrecognized in clinical settings, and that OSA has been implicated in development of cardiovascular conditions. Furthermore, the nocturnal hypoxemia resulting from OSA during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep is longitudinally associated with cardiovascular disease and its risk factors (hypertension, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and carotid atherosclerosis).
 

Study details

Prior research suggests that intermittent hypoxemia activates the sympathetic nervous system, increases oxidative stress and systemic inflammation, and that when chronic, reduces clearance of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and inhibits adipose tissue lipoprotein lipase activity. To clarify inconsistent results in studies investigating potential OSA-dyslipidemia associations, and to confirm research suggesting an independent association with severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 30/h), the authors conducted analyses stratified by waist circumference to observe an obesity-independent association between OSA metrics and dyslipidemia.

The investigators assessed 753 MAILES participants (mean age 60.8 years) who underwent full in-home polysomnography (Embletta X100). They looked at triglycerides, high- (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), total cholesterol, associations between lipids and continuous measures of nocturnal hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation index [ODI], AHI, and REM-AHI), and adjusted for chronic conditions, risk behavior, and sociodemographic factors.

Mean waist circumference was 99.3 cm and OSA (AHI ≥ 10) prevalence was 52.6%. No significant associations were found between OSA metrics and lipid measures in an overall analysis, nor in a sensitivity analysis excluding lipid-lowering therapies.

In a covariate adjusted analysis stratified according to waist circumference (< 95 cm, 95-100 cm, > 100 cm) to minimize the contribution of obesity to hypertriglyceridemia, triglyceride levels were positively associated with AHI, ODI and REM-AHI in the participants with a waist circumference < 95 cm (P < .05), but not in participants with waist circumferences of 95-100 cm or > 100 cm.
 

Worse during REM

The authors observed also that OSA during REM sleep is marked by longer obstructive events with greater oxygen desaturations. Obstructive events during REM sleep, research has shown, may be more harmful than obstructive events during non-REM sleep with respect to hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.

Looking at clinical categories of OSA, Dr. Guscoth and colleagues found that severe OSA was significantly associated with higher likelihood of triglyceride levels ≥ 1.7 mmol/L (odds ratio, 4.1, 95% confidence interval, 1.1-15.5, P = .039). Analysis according to waist circumference confirmed the relationship only among men with waist circumference < 95 cm.
 

Clinical concern

“We therefore suggest that with our data unstratified by weight circumference, metabolic derangements associated with insulin resistance induced by intermittent hypoxia due to OSA cannot be separated from the predominant effect of visceral obesity. When stratified by weight circumference, our data show that these derangements in triglycerides are observed only in lean participants where obesity does not have a dominant effect,” the researchers concluded.

“These findings of high prevalence of metabolic risk in lean patients with OSA, I find very worrying,” coauthor Sarah Appleton, PhD, Flinders Medical Center, Adelaide, Australia, said in an interview. She cited a study showing a 61% risk of dyslipidemia in lean patients with OSA (AHI > 5/hr, body mass index < 25 kg/m², and waist < 80 cm in women, < 90 cm in men), and two of three metabolic syndrome components in 64%. “Annual fasting blood tests would identify metabolic problems such as elevated fasting glucose and triglyceride levels,” she noted.

This work was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Project Grant (627227), the Hospital Research Foundation and ResMed Foundation. There were no relevant conflicts reported.

In men with a normal waist circumference, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) metrics were positively associated with serum triglycerides, according to results of a study published in Nature and Science of Sleep (2021:13 1771-82).

Layla B. Guscoth, MD, of the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia, and colleagues assessed unselected male community-dwelling participants in the Men Androgen Inflammation Lifestyle Environment and Stress (MAILES) and the Florey Adelaide Male Aging Study (FAMAS) studies.

They examined the association of OSA and nocturnal hypoxemia with serum lipid profiles, and suggested that the cardiometabolic risk profiles of healthy weight individuals with OSA require clinical attention, according to the researchers.

The partial or complete obstruction of upper airways found in the OSA syndrome results in intermittent hypoxia, accompanied variably by sleep fragmentation and daytime sleepiness. While the prevalence of moderate to severe OSA was 49.7% in the Swiss HypnoLaus cohort, it was 74.7% in men aged 40 or older (or having OSA syndrome according to ICD-3 criteria). Dr. Guscoth and colleagues point out, however, that OSA is frequently underdiagnosed or unrecognized in clinical settings, and that OSA has been implicated in development of cardiovascular conditions. Furthermore, the nocturnal hypoxemia resulting from OSA during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep is longitudinally associated with cardiovascular disease and its risk factors (hypertension, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and carotid atherosclerosis).
 

Study details

Prior research suggests that intermittent hypoxemia activates the sympathetic nervous system, increases oxidative stress and systemic inflammation, and that when chronic, reduces clearance of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and inhibits adipose tissue lipoprotein lipase activity. To clarify inconsistent results in studies investigating potential OSA-dyslipidemia associations, and to confirm research suggesting an independent association with severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 30/h), the authors conducted analyses stratified by waist circumference to observe an obesity-independent association between OSA metrics and dyslipidemia.

The investigators assessed 753 MAILES participants (mean age 60.8 years) who underwent full in-home polysomnography (Embletta X100). They looked at triglycerides, high- (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), total cholesterol, associations between lipids and continuous measures of nocturnal hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation index [ODI], AHI, and REM-AHI), and adjusted for chronic conditions, risk behavior, and sociodemographic factors.

Mean waist circumference was 99.3 cm and OSA (AHI ≥ 10) prevalence was 52.6%. No significant associations were found between OSA metrics and lipid measures in an overall analysis, nor in a sensitivity analysis excluding lipid-lowering therapies.

In a covariate adjusted analysis stratified according to waist circumference (< 95 cm, 95-100 cm, > 100 cm) to minimize the contribution of obesity to hypertriglyceridemia, triglyceride levels were positively associated with AHI, ODI and REM-AHI in the participants with a waist circumference < 95 cm (P < .05), but not in participants with waist circumferences of 95-100 cm or > 100 cm.
 

Worse during REM

The authors observed also that OSA during REM sleep is marked by longer obstructive events with greater oxygen desaturations. Obstructive events during REM sleep, research has shown, may be more harmful than obstructive events during non-REM sleep with respect to hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.

Looking at clinical categories of OSA, Dr. Guscoth and colleagues found that severe OSA was significantly associated with higher likelihood of triglyceride levels ≥ 1.7 mmol/L (odds ratio, 4.1, 95% confidence interval, 1.1-15.5, P = .039). Analysis according to waist circumference confirmed the relationship only among men with waist circumference < 95 cm.
 

Clinical concern

“We therefore suggest that with our data unstratified by weight circumference, metabolic derangements associated with insulin resistance induced by intermittent hypoxia due to OSA cannot be separated from the predominant effect of visceral obesity. When stratified by weight circumference, our data show that these derangements in triglycerides are observed only in lean participants where obesity does not have a dominant effect,” the researchers concluded.

“These findings of high prevalence of metabolic risk in lean patients with OSA, I find very worrying,” coauthor Sarah Appleton, PhD, Flinders Medical Center, Adelaide, Australia, said in an interview. She cited a study showing a 61% risk of dyslipidemia in lean patients with OSA (AHI > 5/hr, body mass index < 25 kg/m², and waist < 80 cm in women, < 90 cm in men), and two of three metabolic syndrome components in 64%. “Annual fasting blood tests would identify metabolic problems such as elevated fasting glucose and triglyceride levels,” she noted.

This work was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Project Grant (627227), the Hospital Research Foundation and ResMed Foundation. There were no relevant conflicts reported.

In men with a normal waist circumference, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) metrics were positively associated with serum triglycerides, according to results of a study published in Nature and Science of Sleep (2021:13 1771-82).

Layla B. Guscoth, MD, of the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia, and colleagues assessed unselected male community-dwelling participants in the Men Androgen Inflammation Lifestyle Environment and Stress (MAILES) and the Florey Adelaide Male Aging Study (FAMAS) studies.

They examined the association of OSA and nocturnal hypoxemia with serum lipid profiles, and suggested that the cardiometabolic risk profiles of healthy weight individuals with OSA require clinical attention, according to the researchers.

The partial or complete obstruction of upper airways found in the OSA syndrome results in intermittent hypoxia, accompanied variably by sleep fragmentation and daytime sleepiness. While the prevalence of moderate to severe OSA was 49.7% in the Swiss HypnoLaus cohort, it was 74.7% in men aged 40 or older (or having OSA syndrome according to ICD-3 criteria). Dr. Guscoth and colleagues point out, however, that OSA is frequently underdiagnosed or unrecognized in clinical settings, and that OSA has been implicated in development of cardiovascular conditions. Furthermore, the nocturnal hypoxemia resulting from OSA during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep is longitudinally associated with cardiovascular disease and its risk factors (hypertension, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and carotid atherosclerosis).
 

Study details

Prior research suggests that intermittent hypoxemia activates the sympathetic nervous system, increases oxidative stress and systemic inflammation, and that when chronic, reduces clearance of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and inhibits adipose tissue lipoprotein lipase activity. To clarify inconsistent results in studies investigating potential OSA-dyslipidemia associations, and to confirm research suggesting an independent association with severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 30/h), the authors conducted analyses stratified by waist circumference to observe an obesity-independent association between OSA metrics and dyslipidemia.

The investigators assessed 753 MAILES participants (mean age 60.8 years) who underwent full in-home polysomnography (Embletta X100). They looked at triglycerides, high- (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), total cholesterol, associations between lipids and continuous measures of nocturnal hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation index [ODI], AHI, and REM-AHI), and adjusted for chronic conditions, risk behavior, and sociodemographic factors.

Mean waist circumference was 99.3 cm and OSA (AHI ≥ 10) prevalence was 52.6%. No significant associations were found between OSA metrics and lipid measures in an overall analysis, nor in a sensitivity analysis excluding lipid-lowering therapies.

In a covariate adjusted analysis stratified according to waist circumference (< 95 cm, 95-100 cm, > 100 cm) to minimize the contribution of obesity to hypertriglyceridemia, triglyceride levels were positively associated with AHI, ODI and REM-AHI in the participants with a waist circumference < 95 cm (P < .05), but not in participants with waist circumferences of 95-100 cm or > 100 cm.
 

Worse during REM

The authors observed also that OSA during REM sleep is marked by longer obstructive events with greater oxygen desaturations. Obstructive events during REM sleep, research has shown, may be more harmful than obstructive events during non-REM sleep with respect to hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.

Looking at clinical categories of OSA, Dr. Guscoth and colleagues found that severe OSA was significantly associated with higher likelihood of triglyceride levels ≥ 1.7 mmol/L (odds ratio, 4.1, 95% confidence interval, 1.1-15.5, P = .039). Analysis according to waist circumference confirmed the relationship only among men with waist circumference < 95 cm.
 

Clinical concern

“We therefore suggest that with our data unstratified by weight circumference, metabolic derangements associated with insulin resistance induced by intermittent hypoxia due to OSA cannot be separated from the predominant effect of visceral obesity. When stratified by weight circumference, our data show that these derangements in triglycerides are observed only in lean participants where obesity does not have a dominant effect,” the researchers concluded.

“These findings of high prevalence of metabolic risk in lean patients with OSA, I find very worrying,” coauthor Sarah Appleton, PhD, Flinders Medical Center, Adelaide, Australia, said in an interview. She cited a study showing a 61% risk of dyslipidemia in lean patients with OSA (AHI > 5/hr, body mass index < 25 kg/m², and waist < 80 cm in women, < 90 cm in men), and two of three metabolic syndrome components in 64%. “Annual fasting blood tests would identify metabolic problems such as elevated fasting glucose and triglyceride levels,” she noted.

This work was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Project Grant (627227), the Hospital Research Foundation and ResMed Foundation. There were no relevant conflicts reported.

Background: Despite advances in AFib management, up to 5% of patients will have a major complication each year. Current guidelines favor rate control based on prior studies that did not show mortality benefit with rhythm control. By expanding the rhythm strategy to include catheter ablation in early AFib, this trial re-examines if implementing rhythm control leads to improved clinical outcomes. 

Dr. Korovaichuk is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

Background: Despite advances in AFib management, up to 5% of patients will have a major complication each year. Current guidelines favor rate control based on prior studies that did not show mortality benefit with rhythm control. By expanding the rhythm strategy to include catheter ablation in early AFib, this trial re-examines if implementing rhythm control leads to improved clinical outcomes. 

Dr. Korovaichuk is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

Background: Despite advances in AFib management, up to 5% of patients will have a major complication each year. Current guidelines favor rate control based on prior studies that did not show mortality benefit with rhythm control. By expanding the rhythm strategy to include catheter ablation in early AFib, this trial re-examines if implementing rhythm control leads to improved clinical outcomes. 

Dr. Korovaichuk is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

Read More

Read More

Read More

Each month of glucocorticoid use in middle-aged patients with rheumatoid arthritis increases their odds of a major adverse cardiac event by 14%, independent of their baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a Veterans Administration study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A similar study of Medicare and insurance claims data also presented at the meeting similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with long-term glucocorticoid use among patients with RA.

Up to half of patients with RA use long-term glucocorticoids, Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center, told attendees in her presentation.

“Despite previous work suggesting they increase major [adverse] cardiovascular events, or MACE, in a dose-dependent way, prior work suggests long-term glucocorticoid use is common among RA patients with traditional basic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking,” Dr. Wallace said. “But we know little about the incremental effects of ongoing glucocorticoid use on MACE risk in RA, particularly as traditional predisposing comorbidities might confound its assessment.”

VA study details

The retrospective cohort study relied on VA administrative data for 26,239 patients with RA who had at least one rheumatology visit during 2013-2017. Only adults aged 40-90 were included (85% men), and none had other rheumatologic conditions, a previous MACE, or congestive heart failure in the preceding 5 years.

The researchers used pharmacy dispensing data to determine exposure to glucocorticoids, based on the number of days’ supply per 6 months and claims data to identify the primary outcome of MACE, defined as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiac arrest, or coronary revascularization, in the following 6 months. After a first MACE, a patient was removed from subsequent analysis so that only a participant’s initial event was considered.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for demographics, health care utilization, long-term glucocorticoid use (over 90 days), use of methotrexate or biologics, and baseline cardiac risk based on the Veterans Affairs Risk Score for Cardiovascular Disease (VARS-CVD). The VARS-CVD uses age, sex, race, tobacco use, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes diagnosis, and use of antihypertensives to estimate the risk of a MACE in the next 5 years. A 5-year risk of less than 3% was considered low, 3%-9% medium, and above 9% high.

The population’s median 5-year MACE risk based on VARS-CVD was 5.7%, with nearly a quarter of participants (23%) having a high risk. During the first year of follow-up, 23% of patients overall, including 24% of those with high risk, received at least 90 days of glucocorticoids. An incident MACE occurred in 3.2% of overall patients and in 4.9% of high-risk patients. Median time until an incident MACE was 25 months.

After adjusting for confounders, the researchers calculated that each additional 30 days of glucocorticoid use per 6-month period was linked to a 14% increase in odds of a MACE in the subsequent 6-month period (odds ratio, 1.14). This finding remained independent of baseline cardiovascular risk, previous long-term exposure to glucocorticoids, baseline office visits, methotrexate or biologic use, and baseline Elixhauser Cormobidity Index (except rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, and congestive heart failure).

Dr. Wallace noted that the observational study could still include residual confounding because of factors such as rheumatic disease activity, glucocorticoid dose, and care outside the VA. They also did not distinguish between existing and incident RA and were missing some VARS-CVD data, and they did not adjust for hydroxychloroquine use, which can reduce cardiovascular risk.
 

Details of Medicare and private insurance claims study

In the second study, Brian Coburn, MD, a fourth-year internal medicine resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented findings on long-term glucocorticoid use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA based on 2006-2015 claims data from Medicare and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. That study similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with increasing dosage of long-term glucocorticoids.

All the patients in the two databases had an RA diagnosis and remained on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 180 days without adding a new DMARD or stopping therapy for more than 90 days. Patients were not included if they had a history of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Using the 180 days before and after starting DMARDs as baseline, the researchers assessed average dose of glucocorticoids during the last 90 days of the baseline period. Participants included 135,583 patients with Medicare, contributing 158,839 years at risk, and 39,272 patients in the Optum database, contributing 36,876 years at risk. The researchers then assessed composite cardiovascular events as a combination of strokes and myocardial infarctions.

A total of 2,067 cardiovascular events occurred among the Medicare patients, for a incidence of 1.3 events per 100 people per year, and 313 cardiovascular events occurred among Optum patients, for an incidence of 0.8 events per 100 people per year.

Over 1 year, a predicted 1.1% of Medicare patients not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack, compared with 1.4% of those taking up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 1.7% of those taking 5-10 mg/day glucocorticoids, and 1.9% of those taking more than 10 mg/day glucocorticoids. The number needed to harm was 400 people for up to 5 mg/day, 192 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 137 people for more than 10 mg/day.

Among Optum patients, 0.7% not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack over 1 year, compared with 0.9% of those taking up to 5 mg/day and 0.8% of those taking either 5-10 mg/day or more than 10 mg/day. The number needed to harm was 714 people for up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 5,000 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 1,667 for over 10 mg/day.

Dr. Bartels noted that this study “reported unadjusted rates, without controlling for traditional CVD risk factors, for instance, so it will be interesting to see that report after full analysis and peer review as well.” She added that the rates in the VA study may even be higher if there were uncounted cardiovascular events or deaths outside the VA.

“The key take away is that glucocorticoids have dose-related cardiovascular risk shown in both duration and dose of use now in these three large U.S. cohorts,” Dr. Bartels said. “Providers need to counsel patients in judicious use of glucocorticoids, favoring the role of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs while balancing unique needs and quality-of-life considerations in our patients.”

The VA retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research. Dr. Wallace and seven other authors reported no disclosures. Several coauthors reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies. The Medicare/Optum retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Coburn and five coauthors had no disclosures, while several others reported financial ties to a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bartels has received institutional grant support from Pfizer for tobacco cessation research

Each month of glucocorticoid use in middle-aged patients with rheumatoid arthritis increases their odds of a major adverse cardiac event by 14%, independent of their baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a Veterans Administration study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A similar study of Medicare and insurance claims data also presented at the meeting similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with long-term glucocorticoid use among patients with RA.

Up to half of patients with RA use long-term glucocorticoids, Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center, told attendees in her presentation.

“Despite previous work suggesting they increase major [adverse] cardiovascular events, or MACE, in a dose-dependent way, prior work suggests long-term glucocorticoid use is common among RA patients with traditional basic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking,” Dr. Wallace said. “But we know little about the incremental effects of ongoing glucocorticoid use on MACE risk in RA, particularly as traditional predisposing comorbidities might confound its assessment.”

VA study details

The retrospective cohort study relied on VA administrative data for 26,239 patients with RA who had at least one rheumatology visit during 2013-2017. Only adults aged 40-90 were included (85% men), and none had other rheumatologic conditions, a previous MACE, or congestive heart failure in the preceding 5 years.

The researchers used pharmacy dispensing data to determine exposure to glucocorticoids, based on the number of days’ supply per 6 months and claims data to identify the primary outcome of MACE, defined as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiac arrest, or coronary revascularization, in the following 6 months. After a first MACE, a patient was removed from subsequent analysis so that only a participant’s initial event was considered.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for demographics, health care utilization, long-term glucocorticoid use (over 90 days), use of methotrexate or biologics, and baseline cardiac risk based on the Veterans Affairs Risk Score for Cardiovascular Disease (VARS-CVD). The VARS-CVD uses age, sex, race, tobacco use, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes diagnosis, and use of antihypertensives to estimate the risk of a MACE in the next 5 years. A 5-year risk of less than 3% was considered low, 3%-9% medium, and above 9% high.

The population’s median 5-year MACE risk based on VARS-CVD was 5.7%, with nearly a quarter of participants (23%) having a high risk. During the first year of follow-up, 23% of patients overall, including 24% of those with high risk, received at least 90 days of glucocorticoids. An incident MACE occurred in 3.2% of overall patients and in 4.9% of high-risk patients. Median time until an incident MACE was 25 months.

After adjusting for confounders, the researchers calculated that each additional 30 days of glucocorticoid use per 6-month period was linked to a 14% increase in odds of a MACE in the subsequent 6-month period (odds ratio, 1.14). This finding remained independent of baseline cardiovascular risk, previous long-term exposure to glucocorticoids, baseline office visits, methotrexate or biologic use, and baseline Elixhauser Cormobidity Index (except rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, and congestive heart failure).

Dr. Wallace noted that the observational study could still include residual confounding because of factors such as rheumatic disease activity, glucocorticoid dose, and care outside the VA. They also did not distinguish between existing and incident RA and were missing some VARS-CVD data, and they did not adjust for hydroxychloroquine use, which can reduce cardiovascular risk.
 

Details of Medicare and private insurance claims study

In the second study, Brian Coburn, MD, a fourth-year internal medicine resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented findings on long-term glucocorticoid use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA based on 2006-2015 claims data from Medicare and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. That study similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with increasing dosage of long-term glucocorticoids.

All the patients in the two databases had an RA diagnosis and remained on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 180 days without adding a new DMARD or stopping therapy for more than 90 days. Patients were not included if they had a history of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Using the 180 days before and after starting DMARDs as baseline, the researchers assessed average dose of glucocorticoids during the last 90 days of the baseline period. Participants included 135,583 patients with Medicare, contributing 158,839 years at risk, and 39,272 patients in the Optum database, contributing 36,876 years at risk. The researchers then assessed composite cardiovascular events as a combination of strokes and myocardial infarctions.

A total of 2,067 cardiovascular events occurred among the Medicare patients, for a incidence of 1.3 events per 100 people per year, and 313 cardiovascular events occurred among Optum patients, for an incidence of 0.8 events per 100 people per year.

Over 1 year, a predicted 1.1% of Medicare patients not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack, compared with 1.4% of those taking up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 1.7% of those taking 5-10 mg/day glucocorticoids, and 1.9% of those taking more than 10 mg/day glucocorticoids. The number needed to harm was 400 people for up to 5 mg/day, 192 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 137 people for more than 10 mg/day.

Among Optum patients, 0.7% not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack over 1 year, compared with 0.9% of those taking up to 5 mg/day and 0.8% of those taking either 5-10 mg/day or more than 10 mg/day. The number needed to harm was 714 people for up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 5,000 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 1,667 for over 10 mg/day.

Dr. Bartels noted that this study “reported unadjusted rates, without controlling for traditional CVD risk factors, for instance, so it will be interesting to see that report after full analysis and peer review as well.” She added that the rates in the VA study may even be higher if there were uncounted cardiovascular events or deaths outside the VA.

“The key take away is that glucocorticoids have dose-related cardiovascular risk shown in both duration and dose of use now in these three large U.S. cohorts,” Dr. Bartels said. “Providers need to counsel patients in judicious use of glucocorticoids, favoring the role of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs while balancing unique needs and quality-of-life considerations in our patients.”

The VA retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research. Dr. Wallace and seven other authors reported no disclosures. Several coauthors reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies. The Medicare/Optum retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Coburn and five coauthors had no disclosures, while several others reported financial ties to a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bartels has received institutional grant support from Pfizer for tobacco cessation research

Each month of glucocorticoid use in middle-aged patients with rheumatoid arthritis increases their odds of a major adverse cardiac event by 14%, independent of their baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a Veterans Administration study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A similar study of Medicare and insurance claims data also presented at the meeting similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with long-term glucocorticoid use among patients with RA.

Up to half of patients with RA use long-term glucocorticoids, Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center, told attendees in her presentation.

“Despite previous work suggesting they increase major [adverse] cardiovascular events, or MACE, in a dose-dependent way, prior work suggests long-term glucocorticoid use is common among RA patients with traditional basic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking,” Dr. Wallace said. “But we know little about the incremental effects of ongoing glucocorticoid use on MACE risk in RA, particularly as traditional predisposing comorbidities might confound its assessment.”

VA study details

The retrospective cohort study relied on VA administrative data for 26,239 patients with RA who had at least one rheumatology visit during 2013-2017. Only adults aged 40-90 were included (85% men), and none had other rheumatologic conditions, a previous MACE, or congestive heart failure in the preceding 5 years.

The researchers used pharmacy dispensing data to determine exposure to glucocorticoids, based on the number of days’ supply per 6 months and claims data to identify the primary outcome of MACE, defined as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiac arrest, or coronary revascularization, in the following 6 months. After a first MACE, a patient was removed from subsequent analysis so that only a participant’s initial event was considered.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for demographics, health care utilization, long-term glucocorticoid use (over 90 days), use of methotrexate or biologics, and baseline cardiac risk based on the Veterans Affairs Risk Score for Cardiovascular Disease (VARS-CVD). The VARS-CVD uses age, sex, race, tobacco use, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes diagnosis, and use of antihypertensives to estimate the risk of a MACE in the next 5 years. A 5-year risk of less than 3% was considered low, 3%-9% medium, and above 9% high.

The population’s median 5-year MACE risk based on VARS-CVD was 5.7%, with nearly a quarter of participants (23%) having a high risk. During the first year of follow-up, 23% of patients overall, including 24% of those with high risk, received at least 90 days of glucocorticoids. An incident MACE occurred in 3.2% of overall patients and in 4.9% of high-risk patients. Median time until an incident MACE was 25 months.

After adjusting for confounders, the researchers calculated that each additional 30 days of glucocorticoid use per 6-month period was linked to a 14% increase in odds of a MACE in the subsequent 6-month period (odds ratio, 1.14). This finding remained independent of baseline cardiovascular risk, previous long-term exposure to glucocorticoids, baseline office visits, methotrexate or biologic use, and baseline Elixhauser Cormobidity Index (except rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, and congestive heart failure).

Dr. Wallace noted that the observational study could still include residual confounding because of factors such as rheumatic disease activity, glucocorticoid dose, and care outside the VA. They also did not distinguish between existing and incident RA and were missing some VARS-CVD data, and they did not adjust for hydroxychloroquine use, which can reduce cardiovascular risk.
 

Details of Medicare and private insurance claims study

In the second study, Brian Coburn, MD, a fourth-year internal medicine resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented findings on long-term glucocorticoid use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA based on 2006-2015 claims data from Medicare and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. That study similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with increasing dosage of long-term glucocorticoids.

All the patients in the two databases had an RA diagnosis and remained on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 180 days without adding a new DMARD or stopping therapy for more than 90 days. Patients were not included if they had a history of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Using the 180 days before and after starting DMARDs as baseline, the researchers assessed average dose of glucocorticoids during the last 90 days of the baseline period. Participants included 135,583 patients with Medicare, contributing 158,839 years at risk, and 39,272 patients in the Optum database, contributing 36,876 years at risk. The researchers then assessed composite cardiovascular events as a combination of strokes and myocardial infarctions.

A total of 2,067 cardiovascular events occurred among the Medicare patients, for a incidence of 1.3 events per 100 people per year, and 313 cardiovascular events occurred among Optum patients, for an incidence of 0.8 events per 100 people per year.

Over 1 year, a predicted 1.1% of Medicare patients not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack, compared with 1.4% of those taking up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 1.7% of those taking 5-10 mg/day glucocorticoids, and 1.9% of those taking more than 10 mg/day glucocorticoids. The number needed to harm was 400 people for up to 5 mg/day, 192 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 137 people for more than 10 mg/day.

Among Optum patients, 0.7% not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack over 1 year, compared with 0.9% of those taking up to 5 mg/day and 0.8% of those taking either 5-10 mg/day or more than 10 mg/day. The number needed to harm was 714 people for up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 5,000 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 1,667 for over 10 mg/day.

Dr. Bartels noted that this study “reported unadjusted rates, without controlling for traditional CVD risk factors, for instance, so it will be interesting to see that report after full analysis and peer review as well.” She added that the rates in the VA study may even be higher if there were uncounted cardiovascular events or deaths outside the VA.

“The key take away is that glucocorticoids have dose-related cardiovascular risk shown in both duration and dose of use now in these three large U.S. cohorts,” Dr. Bartels said. “Providers need to counsel patients in judicious use of glucocorticoids, favoring the role of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs while balancing unique needs and quality-of-life considerations in our patients.”

The VA retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research. Dr. Wallace and seven other authors reported no disclosures. Several coauthors reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies. The Medicare/Optum retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Coburn and five coauthors had no disclosures, while several others reported financial ties to a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bartels has received institutional grant support from Pfizer for tobacco cessation research

Main results from the landmark EMPEROR-Preserved trial, reported in August, established for the first time that treatment with a drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin, could clearly benefit patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The only caveat was that EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 41%, while “true” HFpEF means patients with heart failure and an LVEF of at least 50%, according to recent definitions. About one-third of the 5,988 patients enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had an LVEF of 41%-49%, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

Secondary analysis from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial has now resolved this ambiguity by showing that, among the 4,005 patients (67%) enrolled in the trial with an LVEF of at least 50%, treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) reduced the study’s primary endpoint – cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure – by a significant 17%, relative to patients who received placebo, dismissing any doubt about the relevance of the overall finding to the subgroup of patients with unmitigated HFpEF.

“This is the first large-scale trial to document meaningful and significant improvements associated with drug therapy in patients with ‘true’ HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Streamlining heart failure treatment

The demonstration that empagliflozin is an effective – and safe – treatment for patients with HFpEF not only provides a new treatment for a disorder that until now had no evidence-based intervention, but also streamlines the management approach for treating patients with heart failure with an agent from empagliflozin’s class, the SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.

That’s because empagliflozin has shown significant and consistent benefit across essentially the full range of LVEFs seen in patients with heart failure based on its performance in EMPEROR-Preserved as well as in a mirror-image trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, run in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Clinicians do not need to stop and assess LVEF with echocardiography or other imaging before they decide on how to treat heart failure patients” with an SGLT2 inhibitor, noted Dr. Walsh, a designated discussant for the report. “Clinicians who are busy can now refer less to LVEF than to the patient’s phenotype.”
 

Treatment prevents hospitalization for heart failure

The more-detailed data reported by Dr. Anker also strengthened the case that the benefit from empagliflozin in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% mostly came from a reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), which dropped following start of empagliflozin treatment by a relative 22%, compared with placebo for first HHF, a significant decline, and by a relative 17% for total HHF, a reduction that missed significance in this secondary analysis. The other half of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, declined by a nonsignificant 11% with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in patients with clear-cut HFpEF.

The significant reduction in first HHF is, by itself, sufficient reason to use empagliflozin (or possibly a different SGLT2 inhibitor) in patients with HFpEF, maintained Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“Attenuated HHF is a meaningful outcome,” stressed Dr. Yancy, also a discussant for the study. “This is the first time we’ve had evidence supporting that we can change the natural history of patients with HFpEF. While we still need to find interventions that save lives, we cannot overlook that this treatment can improve morbidity, and we cannot overlook that patient quality of life is better.”
 

Further benefits in patients with an LVEF of at least 50%

Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology and metabolism at Charité Medical University in Berlin, also reported results from several other analyses that further defined the effect of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes of patients with “true” HFpEF:

• The impact of empagliflozin, compared with placebo, for reducing both the study’s combined, primary outcome as well as total HHF was statistically consistent across all strata of LVEF, from 50% to greater than 70%. However, both outcome measures also showed a puzzling loss of benefit among patients with an LVEF of 65%-69%. In prior reports, a researcher on the EMPEROR-Preserved team, Milton Packer, MD, speculated that some patients in this LVEF stratum might not actually have had heart failure but instead had a different disorder that mimicked heart failure in clinical presentation, such as atrial fibrillation.
• Patients’ quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire showed a consistent benefit from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, both in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% as well as in those with an LVEF of 41%-49%. In both subgroups the adjusted mean difference from placebo was significant and about 1.5 points.
• Patients showed a significant improvement in average New York Heart Association functional class while on treatment, and a strong trend toward less deterioration in functional class while on treatment.
• Deterioration of renal function on treatment slowed by an average 1.24 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, in the subgroup with an LVEF of at least 50%.

Dr. Anker also reported the primary outcome and component results for the subgroup of patients with a baseline LVEF of 41%-49%. These patients had what looked like a “bigger magnitude” of effect from treatment, he noted, showing a significant 29% relative decline in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, and a significant 42% relative drop in first HHF and a significant 43% relative decline in total HHF, compared with placebo.

The primary analysis from EMPEROR-Preserved, which included all 5,988 randomized patients with heart failure and an LVEF of 41% or greater, showed a significant reduction in the combined, primary endpoint with empagliflozin treatment of 21%, compared with control patients during a median follow-up of about 26 months. The absolute rate reduction of the combined primary endpoint was 3.3% during 26-months’ follow-up. Statistical tests have shown no heterogeneity of this effect by diabetes status (49% of patients had diabetes), nor by renal function down to an estimated glomerular filtration rate at entry as low as 20 mL/min per 1.73 m².

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim as well as to Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Brahms, Cardiac Dimensions, Cordio, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Main results from the landmark EMPEROR-Preserved trial, reported in August, established for the first time that treatment with a drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin, could clearly benefit patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The only caveat was that EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 41%, while “true” HFpEF means patients with heart failure and an LVEF of at least 50%, according to recent definitions. About one-third of the 5,988 patients enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had an LVEF of 41%-49%, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

Secondary analysis from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial has now resolved this ambiguity by showing that, among the 4,005 patients (67%) enrolled in the trial with an LVEF of at least 50%, treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) reduced the study’s primary endpoint – cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure – by a significant 17%, relative to patients who received placebo, dismissing any doubt about the relevance of the overall finding to the subgroup of patients with unmitigated HFpEF.

“This is the first large-scale trial to document meaningful and significant improvements associated with drug therapy in patients with ‘true’ HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Streamlining heart failure treatment

The demonstration that empagliflozin is an effective – and safe – treatment for patients with HFpEF not only provides a new treatment for a disorder that until now had no evidence-based intervention, but also streamlines the management approach for treating patients with heart failure with an agent from empagliflozin’s class, the SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.

That’s because empagliflozin has shown significant and consistent benefit across essentially the full range of LVEFs seen in patients with heart failure based on its performance in EMPEROR-Preserved as well as in a mirror-image trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, run in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Clinicians do not need to stop and assess LVEF with echocardiography or other imaging before they decide on how to treat heart failure patients” with an SGLT2 inhibitor, noted Dr. Walsh, a designated discussant for the report. “Clinicians who are busy can now refer less to LVEF than to the patient’s phenotype.”
 

Treatment prevents hospitalization for heart failure

The more-detailed data reported by Dr. Anker also strengthened the case that the benefit from empagliflozin in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% mostly came from a reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), which dropped following start of empagliflozin treatment by a relative 22%, compared with placebo for first HHF, a significant decline, and by a relative 17% for total HHF, a reduction that missed significance in this secondary analysis. The other half of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, declined by a nonsignificant 11% with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in patients with clear-cut HFpEF.

The significant reduction in first HHF is, by itself, sufficient reason to use empagliflozin (or possibly a different SGLT2 inhibitor) in patients with HFpEF, maintained Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“Attenuated HHF is a meaningful outcome,” stressed Dr. Yancy, also a discussant for the study. “This is the first time we’ve had evidence supporting that we can change the natural history of patients with HFpEF. While we still need to find interventions that save lives, we cannot overlook that this treatment can improve morbidity, and we cannot overlook that patient quality of life is better.”
 

Further benefits in patients with an LVEF of at least 50%

Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology and metabolism at Charité Medical University in Berlin, also reported results from several other analyses that further defined the effect of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes of patients with “true” HFpEF:

• The impact of empagliflozin, compared with placebo, for reducing both the study’s combined, primary outcome as well as total HHF was statistically consistent across all strata of LVEF, from 50% to greater than 70%. However, both outcome measures also showed a puzzling loss of benefit among patients with an LVEF of 65%-69%. In prior reports, a researcher on the EMPEROR-Preserved team, Milton Packer, MD, speculated that some patients in this LVEF stratum might not actually have had heart failure but instead had a different disorder that mimicked heart failure in clinical presentation, such as atrial fibrillation.
• Patients’ quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire showed a consistent benefit from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, both in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% as well as in those with an LVEF of 41%-49%. In both subgroups the adjusted mean difference from placebo was significant and about 1.5 points.
• Patients showed a significant improvement in average New York Heart Association functional class while on treatment, and a strong trend toward less deterioration in functional class while on treatment.
• Deterioration of renal function on treatment slowed by an average 1.24 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, in the subgroup with an LVEF of at least 50%.

Dr. Anker also reported the primary outcome and component results for the subgroup of patients with a baseline LVEF of 41%-49%. These patients had what looked like a “bigger magnitude” of effect from treatment, he noted, showing a significant 29% relative decline in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, and a significant 42% relative drop in first HHF and a significant 43% relative decline in total HHF, compared with placebo.

The primary analysis from EMPEROR-Preserved, which included all 5,988 randomized patients with heart failure and an LVEF of 41% or greater, showed a significant reduction in the combined, primary endpoint with empagliflozin treatment of 21%, compared with control patients during a median follow-up of about 26 months. The absolute rate reduction of the combined primary endpoint was 3.3% during 26-months’ follow-up. Statistical tests have shown no heterogeneity of this effect by diabetes status (49% of patients had diabetes), nor by renal function down to an estimated glomerular filtration rate at entry as low as 20 mL/min per 1.73 m².

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim as well as to Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Brahms, Cardiac Dimensions, Cordio, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Main results from the landmark EMPEROR-Preserved trial, reported in August, established for the first time that treatment with a drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin, could clearly benefit patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The only caveat was that EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 41%, while “true” HFpEF means patients with heart failure and an LVEF of at least 50%, according to recent definitions. About one-third of the 5,988 patients enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had an LVEF of 41%-49%, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

Secondary analysis from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial has now resolved this ambiguity by showing that, among the 4,005 patients (67%) enrolled in the trial with an LVEF of at least 50%, treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) reduced the study’s primary endpoint – cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure – by a significant 17%, relative to patients who received placebo, dismissing any doubt about the relevance of the overall finding to the subgroup of patients with unmitigated HFpEF.

“This is the first large-scale trial to document meaningful and significant improvements associated with drug therapy in patients with ‘true’ HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Streamlining heart failure treatment

The demonstration that empagliflozin is an effective – and safe – treatment for patients with HFpEF not only provides a new treatment for a disorder that until now had no evidence-based intervention, but also streamlines the management approach for treating patients with heart failure with an agent from empagliflozin’s class, the SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.

That’s because empagliflozin has shown significant and consistent benefit across essentially the full range of LVEFs seen in patients with heart failure based on its performance in EMPEROR-Preserved as well as in a mirror-image trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, run in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Clinicians do not need to stop and assess LVEF with echocardiography or other imaging before they decide on how to treat heart failure patients” with an SGLT2 inhibitor, noted Dr. Walsh, a designated discussant for the report. “Clinicians who are busy can now refer less to LVEF than to the patient’s phenotype.”
 

Treatment prevents hospitalization for heart failure

The more-detailed data reported by Dr. Anker also strengthened the case that the benefit from empagliflozin in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% mostly came from a reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), which dropped following start of empagliflozin treatment by a relative 22%, compared with placebo for first HHF, a significant decline, and by a relative 17% for total HHF, a reduction that missed significance in this secondary analysis. The other half of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, declined by a nonsignificant 11% with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in patients with clear-cut HFpEF.

The significant reduction in first HHF is, by itself, sufficient reason to use empagliflozin (or possibly a different SGLT2 inhibitor) in patients with HFpEF, maintained Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“Attenuated HHF is a meaningful outcome,” stressed Dr. Yancy, also a discussant for the study. “This is the first time we’ve had evidence supporting that we can change the natural history of patients with HFpEF. While we still need to find interventions that save lives, we cannot overlook that this treatment can improve morbidity, and we cannot overlook that patient quality of life is better.”
 

Further benefits in patients with an LVEF of at least 50%

Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology and metabolism at Charité Medical University in Berlin, also reported results from several other analyses that further defined the effect of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes of patients with “true” HFpEF:

• The impact of empagliflozin, compared with placebo, for reducing both the study’s combined, primary outcome as well as total HHF was statistically consistent across all strata of LVEF, from 50% to greater than 70%. However, both outcome measures also showed a puzzling loss of benefit among patients with an LVEF of 65%-69%. In prior reports, a researcher on the EMPEROR-Preserved team, Milton Packer, MD, speculated that some patients in this LVEF stratum might not actually have had heart failure but instead had a different disorder that mimicked heart failure in clinical presentation, such as atrial fibrillation.
• Patients’ quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire showed a consistent benefit from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, both in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% as well as in those with an LVEF of 41%-49%. In both subgroups the adjusted mean difference from placebo was significant and about 1.5 points.
• Patients showed a significant improvement in average New York Heart Association functional class while on treatment, and a strong trend toward less deterioration in functional class while on treatment.
• Deterioration of renal function on treatment slowed by an average 1.24 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, in the subgroup with an LVEF of at least 50%.

Dr. Anker also reported the primary outcome and component results for the subgroup of patients with a baseline LVEF of 41%-49%. These patients had what looked like a “bigger magnitude” of effect from treatment, he noted, showing a significant 29% relative decline in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, and a significant 42% relative drop in first HHF and a significant 43% relative decline in total HHF, compared with placebo.

The primary analysis from EMPEROR-Preserved, which included all 5,988 randomized patients with heart failure and an LVEF of 41% or greater, showed a significant reduction in the combined, primary endpoint with empagliflozin treatment of 21%, compared with control patients during a median follow-up of about 26 months. The absolute rate reduction of the combined primary endpoint was 3.3% during 26-months’ follow-up. Statistical tests have shown no heterogeneity of this effect by diabetes status (49% of patients had diabetes), nor by renal function down to an estimated glomerular filtration rate at entry as low as 20 mL/min per 1.73 m².

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim as well as to Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Brahms, Cardiac Dimensions, Cordio, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Collaboration between specialized centers and local oncologists could improve equitable access to cellular therapies for patients with diffuse, large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but other “multifaceted and personalized” strategies are also needed, a new study shows.

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia

The findings, from a survey focused on patients’ willingness to travel for treatment, offer valuable insights on DLBCL patients’ perspectives and care needs, and on racial and sociodemographic variations among their perspectives and needs, the investigators said.
 

Treatment decision factors

They used a choice-based conjoint analysis to assess the relative value that 302 patients with DLBCL place on clinical factors, continuity of care, and travel time. Patients were asked to select treatment plans, choosing between pairs of hypothetical options that varied in travel time, follow-up arrangement, oncologist continuity, 2-year overall survival, and intensive care unit admission rate, the authors explained.

When all follow-up care in the hypothetical scenario was provided at the treatment center, plans requiring travel time of longer than 30 minutes were less attractive, Zachary A. K. Frosch, MD, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Importance weights, when compared with 30-minute travel time, were –0.54, –0.57, and –0.17 for 60, 90, and 120 minute travel time, they found.

However, scenarios involving shared follow-up by the treatment center and patients’ local providers mitigated the negative impact of travel on treatment plan choice, they noted (importance weights, 0.63, 0.32, and 0.26 at 60, 90, and 120-minute travel times).

Importantly, an analysis of responses based on sociodemographic factors showed that Black participants were less likely to choose plans requiring longer travel, regardless of follow-up arrangement, the authors said.

“Black patients were also less likely than White patients to choose treatment plans that offered lower continuity with their current oncologist (importance weights, 2.50 to vs. 1.09, respectively),” they wrote.

Further, when making choices that required trade-offs, treatment efficacy was a weaker driver of treatment plan preferences for Black patient than for White patients (importance weights, 0.34 vs. 0.75 per 5% point increase in overall survival, respectively).
 

Why the findings matter

“Certain cancer treatments aren’t offered everywhere. Examples of this are the bone marrow transplants and [chimeric antigen receptor T-cell] therapies used to treat patients with blood cancers such as lymphoma,” Dr. Frosch said in an interview, adding that the limited geographic availability of these treatments means that patients who need them may have to travel farther and also to establish care with a new oncologist.

“These are both things that some patients may be reluctant to do,” added Dr. Frosch, who was with the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, at the time of the study, but is now assistant professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.

“We wanted to better understand how patients think about these trade-offs,” he said. “We found that they were less likely to choose treatments requiring more travel, or treatments that required them to transfer care to a new oncologist. This was the case, even if it meant choosing a treatment that might be less effective against their cancer. But when patients were offered a chance to have half of their follow-up appointments locally, travel was less of a barrier.”

Importantly, not all participants valued each aspect of treatments equally, Dr. Frosch noted, referencing the responses of Black versus White patients.

He and his colleagues stressed that while collaborative follow-up may ease access to more distant treatments for some patients, the lesser willingness among Black participants to travel for cancer therapy – regardless of follow-up arrangement – means that attention must be paid to unintended consequences, to avoid worsening the existing disparities in access to cellular therapies.

These data represent a step toward better understanding of how patients considering whether or not to travel for specialized cancer care weigh trade-offs, he said.

“However, we need to dig deeper into the issues we uncovered in future research, he added. “Our findings suggest that collaborative follow-up between the hospitals that offer these treatments and the oncologists in patients’ own communities could improve access to specialized cancer treatments. But I also think it’s important to understand that this may not be the solution for everyone, and so multiple and individualized strategies are going to be needed.”
 

Personalized treatment strategies

The findings provide important perspective on the need to address patients’ concerns and circumstances to improve access to cellular therapies, said Ankit Kansagra, MD, the Eugene P. Frenkel, M.D. Scholar in Clinical Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The unique focus by Dr. Frosch and his associates on the patient perspective versus the health care system perspective underscores the need to be patient-focused, and serves as a reminder that different strategies are needed for different patients, Dr. Kansagra, who has also conducted research on access to CAR T therapies, said in an interview.

For some patients, a shared model of care is much more important than a 5% improvement in survival, he said, adding that providers shouldn’t assume that they understand a patient’s perspective.

Devising hybrid solutions that take community and individual needs into consideration would be preferable to seeking one national solution for care access, he added.

“It’s also pretty clear from this that it can be a shared model versus just an academic center or community center doing everything,” he said. “I think that’s going to be the next frontier – [determining] how we can hand over a patient, once CAR T is done, back to the community oncologist so he or she can continue following the patient and knows the survivorship plan – and keeping that model in place.”

Next steps

Further work is needed to determine the mechanisms driving the differences observed between Black and White patients in this study, the authors said, explaining that “[a]lthough the differences observed by race may reflect structural racism-driven access inequities, the relatively small subsample of Black patients and model complexity constraints limited our ability to analyze multiple factors.

“A prospective validation study to demonstrate the association of stated preferences with real-world decisions would further support our findings,” they wrote.

Dr. Frosch reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kansagra is on advisory boards for Alnylam, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cota Healthcare, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Takeda.

[email protected]

Collaboration between specialized centers and local oncologists could improve equitable access to cellular therapies for patients with diffuse, large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but other “multifaceted and personalized” strategies are also needed, a new study shows.

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia

The findings, from a survey focused on patients’ willingness to travel for treatment, offer valuable insights on DLBCL patients’ perspectives and care needs, and on racial and sociodemographic variations among their perspectives and needs, the investigators said.
 

Treatment decision factors

They used a choice-based conjoint analysis to assess the relative value that 302 patients with DLBCL place on clinical factors, continuity of care, and travel time. Patients were asked to select treatment plans, choosing between pairs of hypothetical options that varied in travel time, follow-up arrangement, oncologist continuity, 2-year overall survival, and intensive care unit admission rate, the authors explained.

When all follow-up care in the hypothetical scenario was provided at the treatment center, plans requiring travel time of longer than 30 minutes were less attractive, Zachary A. K. Frosch, MD, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Importance weights, when compared with 30-minute travel time, were –0.54, –0.57, and –0.17 for 60, 90, and 120 minute travel time, they found.

However, scenarios involving shared follow-up by the treatment center and patients’ local providers mitigated the negative impact of travel on treatment plan choice, they noted (importance weights, 0.63, 0.32, and 0.26 at 60, 90, and 120-minute travel times).

Importantly, an analysis of responses based on sociodemographic factors showed that Black participants were less likely to choose plans requiring longer travel, regardless of follow-up arrangement, the authors said.

“Black patients were also less likely than White patients to choose treatment plans that offered lower continuity with their current oncologist (importance weights, 2.50 to vs. 1.09, respectively),” they wrote.

Further, when making choices that required trade-offs, treatment efficacy was a weaker driver of treatment plan preferences for Black patient than for White patients (importance weights, 0.34 vs. 0.75 per 5% point increase in overall survival, respectively).
 

Why the findings matter

“Certain cancer treatments aren’t offered everywhere. Examples of this are the bone marrow transplants and [chimeric antigen receptor T-cell] therapies used to treat patients with blood cancers such as lymphoma,” Dr. Frosch said in an interview, adding that the limited geographic availability of these treatments means that patients who need them may have to travel farther and also to establish care with a new oncologist.

“These are both things that some patients may be reluctant to do,” added Dr. Frosch, who was with the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, at the time of the study, but is now assistant professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.

“We wanted to better understand how patients think about these trade-offs,” he said. “We found that they were less likely to choose treatments requiring more travel, or treatments that required them to transfer care to a new oncologist. This was the case, even if it meant choosing a treatment that might be less effective against their cancer. But when patients were offered a chance to have half of their follow-up appointments locally, travel was less of a barrier.”

Importantly, not all participants valued each aspect of treatments equally, Dr. Frosch noted, referencing the responses of Black versus White patients.

He and his colleagues stressed that while collaborative follow-up may ease access to more distant treatments for some patients, the lesser willingness among Black participants to travel for cancer therapy – regardless of follow-up arrangement – means that attention must be paid to unintended consequences, to avoid worsening the existing disparities in access to cellular therapies.

These data represent a step toward better understanding of how patients considering whether or not to travel for specialized cancer care weigh trade-offs, he said.

“However, we need to dig deeper into the issues we uncovered in future research, he added. “Our findings suggest that collaborative follow-up between the hospitals that offer these treatments and the oncologists in patients’ own communities could improve access to specialized cancer treatments. But I also think it’s important to understand that this may not be the solution for everyone, and so multiple and individualized strategies are going to be needed.”
 

Personalized treatment strategies

The findings provide important perspective on the need to address patients’ concerns and circumstances to improve access to cellular therapies, said Ankit Kansagra, MD, the Eugene P. Frenkel, M.D. Scholar in Clinical Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The unique focus by Dr. Frosch and his associates on the patient perspective versus the health care system perspective underscores the need to be patient-focused, and serves as a reminder that different strategies are needed for different patients, Dr. Kansagra, who has also conducted research on access to CAR T therapies, said in an interview.

For some patients, a shared model of care is much more important than a 5% improvement in survival, he said, adding that providers shouldn’t assume that they understand a patient’s perspective.

Devising hybrid solutions that take community and individual needs into consideration would be preferable to seeking one national solution for care access, he added.

“It’s also pretty clear from this that it can be a shared model versus just an academic center or community center doing everything,” he said. “I think that’s going to be the next frontier – [determining] how we can hand over a patient, once CAR T is done, back to the community oncologist so he or she can continue following the patient and knows the survivorship plan – and keeping that model in place.”

Next steps

Further work is needed to determine the mechanisms driving the differences observed between Black and White patients in this study, the authors said, explaining that “[a]lthough the differences observed by race may reflect structural racism-driven access inequities, the relatively small subsample of Black patients and model complexity constraints limited our ability to analyze multiple factors.

“A prospective validation study to demonstrate the association of stated preferences with real-world decisions would further support our findings,” they wrote.

Dr. Frosch reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kansagra is on advisory boards for Alnylam, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cota Healthcare, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Takeda.

[email protected]

Collaboration between specialized centers and local oncologists could improve equitable access to cellular therapies for patients with diffuse, large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but other “multifaceted and personalized” strategies are also needed, a new study shows.

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia

The findings, from a survey focused on patients’ willingness to travel for treatment, offer valuable insights on DLBCL patients’ perspectives and care needs, and on racial and sociodemographic variations among their perspectives and needs, the investigators said.
 

Treatment decision factors

They used a choice-based conjoint analysis to assess the relative value that 302 patients with DLBCL place on clinical factors, continuity of care, and travel time. Patients were asked to select treatment plans, choosing between pairs of hypothetical options that varied in travel time, follow-up arrangement, oncologist continuity, 2-year overall survival, and intensive care unit admission rate, the authors explained.

When all follow-up care in the hypothetical scenario was provided at the treatment center, plans requiring travel time of longer than 30 minutes were less attractive, Zachary A. K. Frosch, MD, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Importance weights, when compared with 30-minute travel time, were –0.54, –0.57, and –0.17 for 60, 90, and 120 minute travel time, they found.

However, scenarios involving shared follow-up by the treatment center and patients’ local providers mitigated the negative impact of travel on treatment plan choice, they noted (importance weights, 0.63, 0.32, and 0.26 at 60, 90, and 120-minute travel times).

Importantly, an analysis of responses based on sociodemographic factors showed that Black participants were less likely to choose plans requiring longer travel, regardless of follow-up arrangement, the authors said.

“Black patients were also less likely than White patients to choose treatment plans that offered lower continuity with their current oncologist (importance weights, 2.50 to vs. 1.09, respectively),” they wrote.

Further, when making choices that required trade-offs, treatment efficacy was a weaker driver of treatment plan preferences for Black patient than for White patients (importance weights, 0.34 vs. 0.75 per 5% point increase in overall survival, respectively).
 

Why the findings matter

“Certain cancer treatments aren’t offered everywhere. Examples of this are the bone marrow transplants and [chimeric antigen receptor T-cell] therapies used to treat patients with blood cancers such as lymphoma,” Dr. Frosch said in an interview, adding that the limited geographic availability of these treatments means that patients who need them may have to travel farther and also to establish care with a new oncologist.

“These are both things that some patients may be reluctant to do,” added Dr. Frosch, who was with the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, at the time of the study, but is now assistant professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.

“We wanted to better understand how patients think about these trade-offs,” he said. “We found that they were less likely to choose treatments requiring more travel, or treatments that required them to transfer care to a new oncologist. This was the case, even if it meant choosing a treatment that might be less effective against their cancer. But when patients were offered a chance to have half of their follow-up appointments locally, travel was less of a barrier.”

Importantly, not all participants valued each aspect of treatments equally, Dr. Frosch noted, referencing the responses of Black versus White patients.

He and his colleagues stressed that while collaborative follow-up may ease access to more distant treatments for some patients, the lesser willingness among Black participants to travel for cancer therapy – regardless of follow-up arrangement – means that attention must be paid to unintended consequences, to avoid worsening the existing disparities in access to cellular therapies.

These data represent a step toward better understanding of how patients considering whether or not to travel for specialized cancer care weigh trade-offs, he said.

“However, we need to dig deeper into the issues we uncovered in future research, he added. “Our findings suggest that collaborative follow-up between the hospitals that offer these treatments and the oncologists in patients’ own communities could improve access to specialized cancer treatments. But I also think it’s important to understand that this may not be the solution for everyone, and so multiple and individualized strategies are going to be needed.”
 

Personalized treatment strategies

The findings provide important perspective on the need to address patients’ concerns and circumstances to improve access to cellular therapies, said Ankit Kansagra, MD, the Eugene P. Frenkel, M.D. Scholar in Clinical Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The unique focus by Dr. Frosch and his associates on the patient perspective versus the health care system perspective underscores the need to be patient-focused, and serves as a reminder that different strategies are needed for different patients, Dr. Kansagra, who has also conducted research on access to CAR T therapies, said in an interview.

For some patients, a shared model of care is much more important than a 5% improvement in survival, he said, adding that providers shouldn’t assume that they understand a patient’s perspective.

Devising hybrid solutions that take community and individual needs into consideration would be preferable to seeking one national solution for care access, he added.

“It’s also pretty clear from this that it can be a shared model versus just an academic center or community center doing everything,” he said. “I think that’s going to be the next frontier – [determining] how we can hand over a patient, once CAR T is done, back to the community oncologist so he or she can continue following the patient and knows the survivorship plan – and keeping that model in place.”

Next steps

Further work is needed to determine the mechanisms driving the differences observed between Black and White patients in this study, the authors said, explaining that “[a]lthough the differences observed by race may reflect structural racism-driven access inequities, the relatively small subsample of Black patients and model complexity constraints limited our ability to analyze multiple factors.

“A prospective validation study to demonstrate the association of stated preferences with real-world decisions would further support our findings,” they wrote.

Dr. Frosch reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kansagra is on advisory boards for Alnylam, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cota Healthcare, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Takeda.

[email protected]