Baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) types 1 and 2, produced substantial rates of hair growth with acceptable tolerability for patients with alopecia areata, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.

In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.

“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.

In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.

The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.

There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.

At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.

The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).

Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.

Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.

“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.

JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.

Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.

Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.

This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.

“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.

Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) types 1 and 2, produced substantial rates of hair growth with acceptable tolerability for patients with alopecia areata, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.

In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.

“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.

In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.

The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.

There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.

At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.

The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).

Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.

Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.

“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.

JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.

Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.

Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.

This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.

“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.

Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) types 1 and 2, produced substantial rates of hair growth with acceptable tolerability for patients with alopecia areata, according to the results of two phase 3 trials presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2021 Annual Meeting.

In both trials, severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of greater than or equal to 50, was an enrollment requirement. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of less than or equal to 20, signifying 80% scalp coverage.

“The mean SALT score at entry was 85,” reported Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He explained that the SALT scale extends from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). About 45% of patients in the phase 3 trials had alopecia universalis.

In both trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, a response was seen with baricitinib after about 4 weeks. Response increased steadily through the entire 36 weeks of treatment. At the end of 36 weeks, when response curves still had an upward trajectory, the proportion of those treated with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib who had achieved a SALT score of less than or equal to 20 had reached 35.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% in BRAVE-AA2.

The nearly identical BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials enrolled 654 and 546 patients, respectively. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo. All treatments were taken once daily. Regrowth of eyebrow and eyelash hair were secondary outcomes.

There was a clear dose effect; hair growth increased more quickly with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib than with the 2-mg dose. The difference between the active therapy and placebo was significant by 16 weeks with the 4-mg dose. By 24 weeks, the advantage of the 2-mg dose over placebo also reached significance. The response rate with the 4-mg dose was nearly twice as great.

At the end of the 36-week trials, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg who achieved the primary endpoint was 21.7% and 17.3% in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively. Among patients taking placebo, the primary endpoint was met by 5.3% and 2.6%, respectively, at the end of the two trials.

The differences in responses with the 4-mg and the 2-mg doses were significantly higher compared with placebo (P ≤ .001 for both doses vs. placebo).

Using a scoring system for eyebrow and eyelash hair loss, the proportion of patients who achieved a score of 0 (full coverage) or 1 (minimal gaps) was again superior in both trials for patients taking the higher dose of baricitinib. This level of response was reached by about 31% to 35% of those taking the 4-mg dose in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 (P ≤ .001 vs. placebo). With the lower dose, the rates were 19.1% and 13.5%, respectively. This endpoint was reached in only about 3% of patients who took placebo.

Rates of adverse events were modestly higher in the two active treatment groups in comparison with the group taking placebo. The most commonly occurring adverse events with baricitinib included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, and headache, according to Dr. King.

“Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate,” he said. He also reported that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of patients, and there were no cases of other opportunistic infections, thromboembolic events, or gastrointestinal perforations. The discontinuation rates because of adverse events with active therapy were less than 3% in both trials.

JAK inhibitors are currently employed in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases. Baricitinib is currently approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Because specificity differs markedly for their inhibition of JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and Tyk2), these drugs do not appear to be interchangeable with regard to clinical effect.

Several case reports of hair regrowth with baricitinib led to a phase 2 trial, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. In this trial, the therapy also yielded substantial benefit for patients with alopecia areata. The benefit of baricitinib is attributed to inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 signaling, which has been implicated in cytokine-mediated immune dysfunction leading to damage of hair follicles.

Alopecia areata is a common disorder that can have a large adverse impact on quality of life, Dr. King noted. There is no approved therapy for this condition, so there is a large unmet need. Although longer follow-up is needed to gauge sustained efficacy and safety, he considers these results promising for a therapy with clinically meaningful benefit.

This point was reiterated by Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Service, University Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, who was moderator of the session in which Dr. King presented these data. She expressed excitement about the promise of baricitinib, particularly with regard to the substantial proportion of patients who achieved meaningful degrees of hair regrowth.

“All of us will be happy to have options for alopecia areata,” said Dr. Calzada, who predicted that the higher dose of baricitinib will be selected for clinical development, given its greater efficacy with little increase in safety concerns.

Eli Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and -AA2 trials. Dr. King has financial relationships with Arena, Aclaris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Calzada has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Houston architect Lanson Jones is one of the nearly 80 million Americans who refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine, arguing the shots are experimental, were rushed to market, may cause side effects, and aren’t all fully approved by federal officials.

But when he contracted COVID in September, he didn’t hesitate to seek treatment with monoclonal antibodies -- a year-old, laboratory-created therapy no less experimental than the vaccines that is not fully approved by the FDA and can also cause rare side effects.

“I haven’t done the shot because I hear a lot -- a lot -- of information about what are some of the effects of these vaccines and how it’s really not being reported, and I just felt I didn’t want to put something in me that has some question,” says Mr. Jones, 65.

“But with this monoclonal antibody treatment, I didn’t hesitate. I had no doubt in my mind -- not even one ounce of doubt about it. Not one person said, ‘Oh, well some people have had a reaction to it.’”

Mr. Jones, who was treated at Houston Methodist Hospital, is one of more than a million Americans who have received antibody IVs after getting the virus.

Those numbers are growing, with the federal government recently taking over distribution of the supplies of the drugs, which are limited in many states.

The treatment has been effective against COVID, in helping patients recover, stay out of the hospital, or die from the illness.

But what doctors and public health experts say is most surprising is that so many of those embracing it are unvaccinated Americans who have refused the shot for reasons that could very well apply to the newly developed and experimental monoclonal antibody therapy, as well.

“I think it’s irrational, quite frankly, if you have to boil it down to one word,” says Howard Huang, MD, who heads up Houston Methodist’s infusion program, which is providing up to 900 doses a week. “It really doesn’t make any sense on multiple levels.”

For one thing, he says, the FDA has just granted full approval for the COVID vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech, upgrading its status from its emergency use authorization (EUA). Many experts expect the FDA to grant similar full approvals to the Moderna vaccine and possibly the Johnson and Johnson shot, which currently have EUA designations.

Many vaccine holdouts have cited the EUA status of the COVID vaccines -- one step shy of full approval -- as a reason they don’t trust the shot. But the antibody treatments have also been granted only EUA approval, which hasn’t stopped vaccine-resistant Americans from seeking them.

“So, they’re refusing an FDA-approved and tested [vaccine], and then they’re seeking something that’s still under an FDA EUA,” says Dr. Huang. “I just don’t get it. I really don’t.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, an emerging infectious diseases specialist with the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, calls it “paradoxical” thinking for vaccine holdouts to refuse a shot that boosts your natural antibodies to prevent COVID, but take an antibody drug to treat it after infection.

“I don’t understand it, I can’t,” he says. “But the pandemic has been politicized and … I think consistency is not something to expect from people who are thinking about this irrationally [and] for people engaging in these conspiracies about the vaccine.

“I do think the fact that people like Joe Rogan and Gov. Abbot and Donald Trump received the monoclonal antibodies does probably play a role in some of the thinking in some of these individuals.”

Terry Scoggin, CEO of Titus Regional Medical Center in Mount Pleasant, Tex., says even the hospital’s doctors have been shocked by the demand for the new therapy among unvaccinated Texans.

“It’s mind-blowing that there’s been such resistance to the vaccine, but that demand for the monoclonal antibodies is so high,” he says, noting only 47% of adults in the region have received at least one dose of the shot. That’s far below CDC estimates that say 75.2% of American adults have received one shot, while 64.7% are fully vaccinated.

“But our doctors believe in the monoclonal antibodies, so it’s a trust factor -- they trust our community physicians,” Mr. Scoggin says. “I’ve never put the two and two together about the fear of the vaccine vs. [lack of fear] of the treatment. But it’s really interesting.”
 

Treatments effective, costly

Like the COVID vaccines given to nearly 214 million Americans, the antibody treatments taken by more than 1 million in the United States are highly effective and cause only rare (and usually minor) side effects.

Federal health officials say the infusions have helped keep the U.S. death toll -- now about 2,000 per day-- from soaring even higher, even as vaccine hesitancy persists, particularly in Southern states.

The FDA first authorized monoclonal antibody drugs in November 2020 -- just weeks before the vaccines were approved. But their popularity has soared as the Delta variant of the virus that causes COVID-19 has surged in recent months.

Clinical trials show that the drugs can cut COVID-related hospitalization or death in high-risk patients by as much as 70%-80%. They also can prevent infection in healthy people who have been exposed to an infected person, according to research published this month in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Monoclonal antibodies have been used for decades to treat cancer, autoimmune disorders, and other diseases, with the FDA approving nearly 100 such treatments since 1994.

The FDA has granted EUA approvals to four antibody treatments for COVID-19.

A two-antibody drug combination from Regeneron -- containing casirivimab and imdevimab -- has been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death by 70% in people infected with COVID. Sotrovimab, made by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir, has had similar results.

The FDA approved a third treatment -- Eli Lilly’s combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab -- in 2020, but the agency recommended against its use earlier this year after it proved ineffective against the Delta variant. The combination came back on the market in late August, but only in states where fewer than 5% of COVID infections are from strains, such as Delta, that are resistant to the treatment.

In June, the FDA authorized a fourth drug combination, Genentech’s tocilizumab, for people already hospitalized with COVID. But it is only moderately effective against the disease.

Lab-made monoclonal antibodies mimic the antibodies the body makes to fight viruses and illnesses. They work by targeting the spike protein on the surface of the virus. COVID vaccines work by priming the body’s immune system to recognize this very same spike protein and block it from entering your body’s cells, preventing infection.

Antibody treatments are given as an IV to treat an infection but can also be given as shots into the belly for people who have been exposed to the virus but have not yet been sickened by it, Dr. Huang says.

Timing is critical, he says, noting antibodies are most effective when given in the first few days after symptoms emerge.
 

Demands, concerns on the rise

Orders for monoclonal antibodies have skyrocketed in recent weeks -- to 168,000 doses per week in late August, up from 27,000 in July. The Biden administration, which has been covering the cost of the treatment for most patients, took over its distribution as well this week.

But experts foresee potential problems as patient demand increases.

Federal officials have already warned states of potential shortages ahead. Only about 2.4 million monoclonal antibody doses have been shipped nationally so far, less than half of which have been administered.

More supplies are on the way, with the federal government recently buying another 1.8 million doses for delivery in the months ahead. But for now, some hospitals are uncertain of supplies and are already struggling to meet the demand for the treatments.

Seven Southern states account for 70% of orders: Texas, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and Louisiana. Those states have among the nation’s lowest vaccine rates and highest infection numbers.

Florida officials said the state’s latest weekly allotment left clinics 41,000 doses short of what they need. Tennessee has begun limiting treatments for unvaccinated patients to give priority to those most at risk of dying from COVID. And in Texas, elective surgeries have been postponed to make room for COVID-19 patients at some hospitals, as operating room nurses have been enlisted to give IVs.

Some strong proponents of monoclonal antibody treatments have been frustrated by Republican governors who are scrambling to push and deliver them, while opposing vaccine and mask mandates.

Raising vaccination rates, scientists say, would make the antibody treatments unnecessary in many cases.

Experts also note the drugs are far more costly than the vaccines -- with a price tag of about $2,100 for each IV, compared to $20-$40 for the shot.

“When you’re talking about just the cost to society as a whole -- turning down a [vaccine] that costs a couple dozen dollars for therapies that cost thousands of dollars -- it just doesn’t make any sense,” says Dr. Huang.

“And the tragedy is that a lot of these infections right now are preventable. It’s not like the pre-vaccine days, when we didn’t have anything better. And for these people, it’s just hard to justify that line of thinking. And so, the challenge is changing people’s minds. And that’s really been the difficult thing.”

In addition, the treatments take 90 minutes to administer, taxing health care workers in hard-hit states that have been slammed by the influx of patients.

Beyond these issues, Dr. Huang cites other public health costs of people choosing treatment over vaccination. The vaccine protects others because it limits transmission of the virus. By contrast, a single antibody IV helps only that patient and does not keep people from infecting others or becoming reinfected, requiring another IV.

“Getting the vaccine helps people beyond yourself; it helps the community, too,” he notes. “There’s just a strong argument for getting the vaccine. I obviously have a very biased opinion, but I would hope I have more of a scientific or expert opinion, but that doesn’t seem to matter these days.”
 

Vaccine resistance still remains for some

Seth Thurman, an IT technician from Mount Pleasant, Tex., acknowledges he was hesitant to get the vaccine at first because he felt it was fast-tracked, “experimental,” might cause unknown side effects, was developed quickly, and was being pushed by government officials.

“I shared the same sentiments as a lot of other people [as] some of the reasons why I might have been hesitant in the beginning to get the vaccine, says Mr. Thurman, 47. “A lot of people don’t trust what’s out there, maybe what the government is pushing, so I was taking a wait-and-see approach.”

In August, he relented and received the first of the two-shot Moderna vaccine. But several weeks later, he developed COVID and took his doctor’s advice to receive antibody therapy at Titus Regional Medical Center.

The results were almost immediate.

“I noticed within just a few hours of getting that infusion I was feeling better,” he says. “And by the next day, I was feeling great. No more temperature and no cough and no loss of taste and smell. And today, I’m 100%.”

Having had COVID convinced him of the importance of getting the vaccine, and he plans to get the second dose of the shot after the prescribed 90-day waiting period.

But Mr. Jones, the Houston architect, remains unconvinced, even after suffering what he describes as a “horrible” experience with COVID.

“It’s something I’m still thinking about,” he says of the vaccine. “But I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be some sort of side effects from something that was developed so fast and had not gone through 4 or 5 years of vetting or trials. So that kind of just leaves doubt in my mind.

“And it’s just so weird that something so personal has become so public -- like people’s medical decisions now are on the front page of The New York Times. When did we think something like that would ever happen?”

The quick results of his treatment were so “remarkable” that he’d recommend it to anyone without hesitation, he says.

“If my story can help people be willing to seek out this infusion and take it early on in their COVID experience, I think it would not only save lives and keep people out of our hospitals and not overwhelm our hospital systems,” he says.

Dr. Huang agrees that the IV therapy is a great “fallback option” for people who’ve been infected, who have weakened immune systems, or can’t receive the vaccine for other health reasons. But for most people, he argues, the vaccine is the best way to go. That’s why Houston Methodist advises the shot for every patient like Mr. Jones, who’s been treated for COVID.

“Getting the vaccine is the way to go for the vast number of people,” he says.

Frederick Thurmond, MD, who oversees COVID-related care at Titus Regional Medical Center, believes it will take more than just doctors’ recommendations to move some patients to get the vaccine. The only thing that will motivate some will be contracting COVID, or knowing someone who does, he says.

“It’s clear that at least here in Texas, I swear man, you tell people they need to do something, and they just say, ‘Well, then I’m NOT going to do it,’” he says. “But once you’ve got COVID, the game becomes a whole lot more serious. And I think most people in the U.S. know someone who’s died from COVID at this point.”

Dr. Thurmond says that for some patients, stubborn resistance to legitimate medical advice persists -- on the vaccine and even treatment -- even after infection.

“We have seen more than one person avoid any medical care whatsoever after they knew they had COVID,” he says. “They languish in private and eventually come to the emergency room extremely sick and doing things with little to no medical value -- such as taking a friend’s hydroxychloroquine, random antibiotics, a horse de-worming dose of ivermectin, and gargling with Betadine and even bleach.”

But most of his patients who have the IV therapy take his advice to get the vaccine afterward.

“The only way to end the pandemic is to vaccinate everybody,” he says.

Dr. Adalja agrees.

“The monoclonal antibodies work, they are great drugs, so I think it is appropriate to praise them,” says Dr. Adalja, who’s given them to his own patients. “But it’s not appropriate to use them as an alternative to vaccination or to think, you know, don’t worry about the getting the vaccine because if you get infected and get the monoclonal antibodies to get through this -- that’s not the way to approach it.

He also worries about what he calls “dark-age mentalities” that have fueled the anti-vaccine movement, which has sought to heighten fears of modern medicine and doctors.

“The anti-vaccine movement has really capitalized on COVID-19, and it’s really a much more virulent form of the anti-vaccine movement than what we’ve seen with measles and other diseases in the past,” he notes. “And I think it’s going to be very difficult to contend with in the future, because no one thought we’d be battling the anti-vaccine movement this late in the pandemic.”

The biggest takeaway?

“When it comes to an infectious disease, prevention is always much better than treatment,” Dr. Adalja says. “If you don’t even need to get to the treatment stage because you prevent people from getting infected, that’s the goal.”

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

Houston architect Lanson Jones is one of the nearly 80 million Americans who refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine, arguing the shots are experimental, were rushed to market, may cause side effects, and aren’t all fully approved by federal officials.

But when he contracted COVID in September, he didn’t hesitate to seek treatment with monoclonal antibodies -- a year-old, laboratory-created therapy no less experimental than the vaccines that is not fully approved by the FDA and can also cause rare side effects.

“I haven’t done the shot because I hear a lot -- a lot -- of information about what are some of the effects of these vaccines and how it’s really not being reported, and I just felt I didn’t want to put something in me that has some question,” says Mr. Jones, 65.

“But with this monoclonal antibody treatment, I didn’t hesitate. I had no doubt in my mind -- not even one ounce of doubt about it. Not one person said, ‘Oh, well some people have had a reaction to it.’”

Mr. Jones, who was treated at Houston Methodist Hospital, is one of more than a million Americans who have received antibody IVs after getting the virus.

Those numbers are growing, with the federal government recently taking over distribution of the supplies of the drugs, which are limited in many states.

The treatment has been effective against COVID, in helping patients recover, stay out of the hospital, or die from the illness.

But what doctors and public health experts say is most surprising is that so many of those embracing it are unvaccinated Americans who have refused the shot for reasons that could very well apply to the newly developed and experimental monoclonal antibody therapy, as well.

“I think it’s irrational, quite frankly, if you have to boil it down to one word,” says Howard Huang, MD, who heads up Houston Methodist’s infusion program, which is providing up to 900 doses a week. “It really doesn’t make any sense on multiple levels.”

For one thing, he says, the FDA has just granted full approval for the COVID vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech, upgrading its status from its emergency use authorization (EUA). Many experts expect the FDA to grant similar full approvals to the Moderna vaccine and possibly the Johnson and Johnson shot, which currently have EUA designations.

Many vaccine holdouts have cited the EUA status of the COVID vaccines -- one step shy of full approval -- as a reason they don’t trust the shot. But the antibody treatments have also been granted only EUA approval, which hasn’t stopped vaccine-resistant Americans from seeking them.

“So, they’re refusing an FDA-approved and tested [vaccine], and then they’re seeking something that’s still under an FDA EUA,” says Dr. Huang. “I just don’t get it. I really don’t.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, an emerging infectious diseases specialist with the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, calls it “paradoxical” thinking for vaccine holdouts to refuse a shot that boosts your natural antibodies to prevent COVID, but take an antibody drug to treat it after infection.

“I don’t understand it, I can’t,” he says. “But the pandemic has been politicized and … I think consistency is not something to expect from people who are thinking about this irrationally [and] for people engaging in these conspiracies about the vaccine.

“I do think the fact that people like Joe Rogan and Gov. Abbot and Donald Trump received the monoclonal antibodies does probably play a role in some of the thinking in some of these individuals.”

Terry Scoggin, CEO of Titus Regional Medical Center in Mount Pleasant, Tex., says even the hospital’s doctors have been shocked by the demand for the new therapy among unvaccinated Texans.

“It’s mind-blowing that there’s been such resistance to the vaccine, but that demand for the monoclonal antibodies is so high,” he says, noting only 47% of adults in the region have received at least one dose of the shot. That’s far below CDC estimates that say 75.2% of American adults have received one shot, while 64.7% are fully vaccinated.

“But our doctors believe in the monoclonal antibodies, so it’s a trust factor -- they trust our community physicians,” Mr. Scoggin says. “I’ve never put the two and two together about the fear of the vaccine vs. [lack of fear] of the treatment. But it’s really interesting.”
 

Treatments effective, costly

Like the COVID vaccines given to nearly 214 million Americans, the antibody treatments taken by more than 1 million in the United States are highly effective and cause only rare (and usually minor) side effects.

Federal health officials say the infusions have helped keep the U.S. death toll -- now about 2,000 per day-- from soaring even higher, even as vaccine hesitancy persists, particularly in Southern states.

The FDA first authorized monoclonal antibody drugs in November 2020 -- just weeks before the vaccines were approved. But their popularity has soared as the Delta variant of the virus that causes COVID-19 has surged in recent months.

Clinical trials show that the drugs can cut COVID-related hospitalization or death in high-risk patients by as much as 70%-80%. They also can prevent infection in healthy people who have been exposed to an infected person, according to research published this month in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Monoclonal antibodies have been used for decades to treat cancer, autoimmune disorders, and other diseases, with the FDA approving nearly 100 such treatments since 1994.

The FDA has granted EUA approvals to four antibody treatments for COVID-19.

A two-antibody drug combination from Regeneron -- containing casirivimab and imdevimab -- has been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death by 70% in people infected with COVID. Sotrovimab, made by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir, has had similar results.

The FDA approved a third treatment -- Eli Lilly’s combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab -- in 2020, but the agency recommended against its use earlier this year after it proved ineffective against the Delta variant. The combination came back on the market in late August, but only in states where fewer than 5% of COVID infections are from strains, such as Delta, that are resistant to the treatment.

In June, the FDA authorized a fourth drug combination, Genentech’s tocilizumab, for people already hospitalized with COVID. But it is only moderately effective against the disease.

Lab-made monoclonal antibodies mimic the antibodies the body makes to fight viruses and illnesses. They work by targeting the spike protein on the surface of the virus. COVID vaccines work by priming the body’s immune system to recognize this very same spike protein and block it from entering your body’s cells, preventing infection.

Antibody treatments are given as an IV to treat an infection but can also be given as shots into the belly for people who have been exposed to the virus but have not yet been sickened by it, Dr. Huang says.

Timing is critical, he says, noting antibodies are most effective when given in the first few days after symptoms emerge.
 

Demands, concerns on the rise

Orders for monoclonal antibodies have skyrocketed in recent weeks -- to 168,000 doses per week in late August, up from 27,000 in July. The Biden administration, which has been covering the cost of the treatment for most patients, took over its distribution as well this week.

But experts foresee potential problems as patient demand increases.

Federal officials have already warned states of potential shortages ahead. Only about 2.4 million monoclonal antibody doses have been shipped nationally so far, less than half of which have been administered.

More supplies are on the way, with the federal government recently buying another 1.8 million doses for delivery in the months ahead. But for now, some hospitals are uncertain of supplies and are already struggling to meet the demand for the treatments.

Seven Southern states account for 70% of orders: Texas, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and Louisiana. Those states have among the nation’s lowest vaccine rates and highest infection numbers.

Florida officials said the state’s latest weekly allotment left clinics 41,000 doses short of what they need. Tennessee has begun limiting treatments for unvaccinated patients to give priority to those most at risk of dying from COVID. And in Texas, elective surgeries have been postponed to make room for COVID-19 patients at some hospitals, as operating room nurses have been enlisted to give IVs.

Some strong proponents of monoclonal antibody treatments have been frustrated by Republican governors who are scrambling to push and deliver them, while opposing vaccine and mask mandates.

Raising vaccination rates, scientists say, would make the antibody treatments unnecessary in many cases.

Experts also note the drugs are far more costly than the vaccines -- with a price tag of about $2,100 for each IV, compared to $20-$40 for the shot.

“When you’re talking about just the cost to society as a whole -- turning down a [vaccine] that costs a couple dozen dollars for therapies that cost thousands of dollars -- it just doesn’t make any sense,” says Dr. Huang.

“And the tragedy is that a lot of these infections right now are preventable. It’s not like the pre-vaccine days, when we didn’t have anything better. And for these people, it’s just hard to justify that line of thinking. And so, the challenge is changing people’s minds. And that’s really been the difficult thing.”

In addition, the treatments take 90 minutes to administer, taxing health care workers in hard-hit states that have been slammed by the influx of patients.

Beyond these issues, Dr. Huang cites other public health costs of people choosing treatment over vaccination. The vaccine protects others because it limits transmission of the virus. By contrast, a single antibody IV helps only that patient and does not keep people from infecting others or becoming reinfected, requiring another IV.

“Getting the vaccine helps people beyond yourself; it helps the community, too,” he notes. “There’s just a strong argument for getting the vaccine. I obviously have a very biased opinion, but I would hope I have more of a scientific or expert opinion, but that doesn’t seem to matter these days.”
 

Vaccine resistance still remains for some

Seth Thurman, an IT technician from Mount Pleasant, Tex., acknowledges he was hesitant to get the vaccine at first because he felt it was fast-tracked, “experimental,” might cause unknown side effects, was developed quickly, and was being pushed by government officials.

“I shared the same sentiments as a lot of other people [as] some of the reasons why I might have been hesitant in the beginning to get the vaccine, says Mr. Thurman, 47. “A lot of people don’t trust what’s out there, maybe what the government is pushing, so I was taking a wait-and-see approach.”

In August, he relented and received the first of the two-shot Moderna vaccine. But several weeks later, he developed COVID and took his doctor’s advice to receive antibody therapy at Titus Regional Medical Center.

The results were almost immediate.

“I noticed within just a few hours of getting that infusion I was feeling better,” he says. “And by the next day, I was feeling great. No more temperature and no cough and no loss of taste and smell. And today, I’m 100%.”

Having had COVID convinced him of the importance of getting the vaccine, and he plans to get the second dose of the shot after the prescribed 90-day waiting period.

But Mr. Jones, the Houston architect, remains unconvinced, even after suffering what he describes as a “horrible” experience with COVID.

“It’s something I’m still thinking about,” he says of the vaccine. “But I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be some sort of side effects from something that was developed so fast and had not gone through 4 or 5 years of vetting or trials. So that kind of just leaves doubt in my mind.

“And it’s just so weird that something so personal has become so public -- like people’s medical decisions now are on the front page of The New York Times. When did we think something like that would ever happen?”

The quick results of his treatment were so “remarkable” that he’d recommend it to anyone without hesitation, he says.

“If my story can help people be willing to seek out this infusion and take it early on in their COVID experience, I think it would not only save lives and keep people out of our hospitals and not overwhelm our hospital systems,” he says.

Dr. Huang agrees that the IV therapy is a great “fallback option” for people who’ve been infected, who have weakened immune systems, or can’t receive the vaccine for other health reasons. But for most people, he argues, the vaccine is the best way to go. That’s why Houston Methodist advises the shot for every patient like Mr. Jones, who’s been treated for COVID.

“Getting the vaccine is the way to go for the vast number of people,” he says.

Frederick Thurmond, MD, who oversees COVID-related care at Titus Regional Medical Center, believes it will take more than just doctors’ recommendations to move some patients to get the vaccine. The only thing that will motivate some will be contracting COVID, or knowing someone who does, he says.

“It’s clear that at least here in Texas, I swear man, you tell people they need to do something, and they just say, ‘Well, then I’m NOT going to do it,’” he says. “But once you’ve got COVID, the game becomes a whole lot more serious. And I think most people in the U.S. know someone who’s died from COVID at this point.”

Dr. Thurmond says that for some patients, stubborn resistance to legitimate medical advice persists -- on the vaccine and even treatment -- even after infection.

“We have seen more than one person avoid any medical care whatsoever after they knew they had COVID,” he says. “They languish in private and eventually come to the emergency room extremely sick and doing things with little to no medical value -- such as taking a friend’s hydroxychloroquine, random antibiotics, a horse de-worming dose of ivermectin, and gargling with Betadine and even bleach.”

But most of his patients who have the IV therapy take his advice to get the vaccine afterward.

“The only way to end the pandemic is to vaccinate everybody,” he says.

Dr. Adalja agrees.

“The monoclonal antibodies work, they are great drugs, so I think it is appropriate to praise them,” says Dr. Adalja, who’s given them to his own patients. “But it’s not appropriate to use them as an alternative to vaccination or to think, you know, don’t worry about the getting the vaccine because if you get infected and get the monoclonal antibodies to get through this -- that’s not the way to approach it.

He also worries about what he calls “dark-age mentalities” that have fueled the anti-vaccine movement, which has sought to heighten fears of modern medicine and doctors.

“The anti-vaccine movement has really capitalized on COVID-19, and it’s really a much more virulent form of the anti-vaccine movement than what we’ve seen with measles and other diseases in the past,” he notes. “And I think it’s going to be very difficult to contend with in the future, because no one thought we’d be battling the anti-vaccine movement this late in the pandemic.”

The biggest takeaway?

“When it comes to an infectious disease, prevention is always much better than treatment,” Dr. Adalja says. “If you don’t even need to get to the treatment stage because you prevent people from getting infected, that’s the goal.”

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

Houston architect Lanson Jones is one of the nearly 80 million Americans who refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine, arguing the shots are experimental, were rushed to market, may cause side effects, and aren’t all fully approved by federal officials.

But when he contracted COVID in September, he didn’t hesitate to seek treatment with monoclonal antibodies -- a year-old, laboratory-created therapy no less experimental than the vaccines that is not fully approved by the FDA and can also cause rare side effects.

“I haven’t done the shot because I hear a lot -- a lot -- of information about what are some of the effects of these vaccines and how it’s really not being reported, and I just felt I didn’t want to put something in me that has some question,” says Mr. Jones, 65.

“But with this monoclonal antibody treatment, I didn’t hesitate. I had no doubt in my mind -- not even one ounce of doubt about it. Not one person said, ‘Oh, well some people have had a reaction to it.’”

Mr. Jones, who was treated at Houston Methodist Hospital, is one of more than a million Americans who have received antibody IVs after getting the virus.

Those numbers are growing, with the federal government recently taking over distribution of the supplies of the drugs, which are limited in many states.

The treatment has been effective against COVID, in helping patients recover, stay out of the hospital, or die from the illness.

But what doctors and public health experts say is most surprising is that so many of those embracing it are unvaccinated Americans who have refused the shot for reasons that could very well apply to the newly developed and experimental monoclonal antibody therapy, as well.

“I think it’s irrational, quite frankly, if you have to boil it down to one word,” says Howard Huang, MD, who heads up Houston Methodist’s infusion program, which is providing up to 900 doses a week. “It really doesn’t make any sense on multiple levels.”

For one thing, he says, the FDA has just granted full approval for the COVID vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech, upgrading its status from its emergency use authorization (EUA). Many experts expect the FDA to grant similar full approvals to the Moderna vaccine and possibly the Johnson and Johnson shot, which currently have EUA designations.

Many vaccine holdouts have cited the EUA status of the COVID vaccines -- one step shy of full approval -- as a reason they don’t trust the shot. But the antibody treatments have also been granted only EUA approval, which hasn’t stopped vaccine-resistant Americans from seeking them.

“So, they’re refusing an FDA-approved and tested [vaccine], and then they’re seeking something that’s still under an FDA EUA,” says Dr. Huang. “I just don’t get it. I really don’t.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, an emerging infectious diseases specialist with the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, calls it “paradoxical” thinking for vaccine holdouts to refuse a shot that boosts your natural antibodies to prevent COVID, but take an antibody drug to treat it after infection.

“I don’t understand it, I can’t,” he says. “But the pandemic has been politicized and … I think consistency is not something to expect from people who are thinking about this irrationally [and] for people engaging in these conspiracies about the vaccine.

“I do think the fact that people like Joe Rogan and Gov. Abbot and Donald Trump received the monoclonal antibodies does probably play a role in some of the thinking in some of these individuals.”

Terry Scoggin, CEO of Titus Regional Medical Center in Mount Pleasant, Tex., says even the hospital’s doctors have been shocked by the demand for the new therapy among unvaccinated Texans.

“It’s mind-blowing that there’s been such resistance to the vaccine, but that demand for the monoclonal antibodies is so high,” he says, noting only 47% of adults in the region have received at least one dose of the shot. That’s far below CDC estimates that say 75.2% of American adults have received one shot, while 64.7% are fully vaccinated.

“But our doctors believe in the monoclonal antibodies, so it’s a trust factor -- they trust our community physicians,” Mr. Scoggin says. “I’ve never put the two and two together about the fear of the vaccine vs. [lack of fear] of the treatment. But it’s really interesting.”
 

Treatments effective, costly

Like the COVID vaccines given to nearly 214 million Americans, the antibody treatments taken by more than 1 million in the United States are highly effective and cause only rare (and usually minor) side effects.

Federal health officials say the infusions have helped keep the U.S. death toll -- now about 2,000 per day-- from soaring even higher, even as vaccine hesitancy persists, particularly in Southern states.

The FDA first authorized monoclonal antibody drugs in November 2020 -- just weeks before the vaccines were approved. But their popularity has soared as the Delta variant of the virus that causes COVID-19 has surged in recent months.

Clinical trials show that the drugs can cut COVID-related hospitalization or death in high-risk patients by as much as 70%-80%. They also can prevent infection in healthy people who have been exposed to an infected person, according to research published this month in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Monoclonal antibodies have been used for decades to treat cancer, autoimmune disorders, and other diseases, with the FDA approving nearly 100 such treatments since 1994.

The FDA has granted EUA approvals to four antibody treatments for COVID-19.

A two-antibody drug combination from Regeneron -- containing casirivimab and imdevimab -- has been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death by 70% in people infected with COVID. Sotrovimab, made by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir, has had similar results.

The FDA approved a third treatment -- Eli Lilly’s combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab -- in 2020, but the agency recommended against its use earlier this year after it proved ineffective against the Delta variant. The combination came back on the market in late August, but only in states where fewer than 5% of COVID infections are from strains, such as Delta, that are resistant to the treatment.

In June, the FDA authorized a fourth drug combination, Genentech’s tocilizumab, for people already hospitalized with COVID. But it is only moderately effective against the disease.

Lab-made monoclonal antibodies mimic the antibodies the body makes to fight viruses and illnesses. They work by targeting the spike protein on the surface of the virus. COVID vaccines work by priming the body’s immune system to recognize this very same spike protein and block it from entering your body’s cells, preventing infection.

Antibody treatments are given as an IV to treat an infection but can also be given as shots into the belly for people who have been exposed to the virus but have not yet been sickened by it, Dr. Huang says.

Timing is critical, he says, noting antibodies are most effective when given in the first few days after symptoms emerge.
 

Demands, concerns on the rise

Orders for monoclonal antibodies have skyrocketed in recent weeks -- to 168,000 doses per week in late August, up from 27,000 in July. The Biden administration, which has been covering the cost of the treatment for most patients, took over its distribution as well this week.

But experts foresee potential problems as patient demand increases.

Federal officials have already warned states of potential shortages ahead. Only about 2.4 million monoclonal antibody doses have been shipped nationally so far, less than half of which have been administered.

More supplies are on the way, with the federal government recently buying another 1.8 million doses for delivery in the months ahead. But for now, some hospitals are uncertain of supplies and are already struggling to meet the demand for the treatments.

Seven Southern states account for 70% of orders: Texas, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and Louisiana. Those states have among the nation’s lowest vaccine rates and highest infection numbers.

Florida officials said the state’s latest weekly allotment left clinics 41,000 doses short of what they need. Tennessee has begun limiting treatments for unvaccinated patients to give priority to those most at risk of dying from COVID. And in Texas, elective surgeries have been postponed to make room for COVID-19 patients at some hospitals, as operating room nurses have been enlisted to give IVs.

Some strong proponents of monoclonal antibody treatments have been frustrated by Republican governors who are scrambling to push and deliver them, while opposing vaccine and mask mandates.

Raising vaccination rates, scientists say, would make the antibody treatments unnecessary in many cases.

Experts also note the drugs are far more costly than the vaccines -- with a price tag of about $2,100 for each IV, compared to $20-$40 for the shot.

“When you’re talking about just the cost to society as a whole -- turning down a [vaccine] that costs a couple dozen dollars for therapies that cost thousands of dollars -- it just doesn’t make any sense,” says Dr. Huang.

“And the tragedy is that a lot of these infections right now are preventable. It’s not like the pre-vaccine days, when we didn’t have anything better. And for these people, it’s just hard to justify that line of thinking. And so, the challenge is changing people’s minds. And that’s really been the difficult thing.”

In addition, the treatments take 90 minutes to administer, taxing health care workers in hard-hit states that have been slammed by the influx of patients.

Beyond these issues, Dr. Huang cites other public health costs of people choosing treatment over vaccination. The vaccine protects others because it limits transmission of the virus. By contrast, a single antibody IV helps only that patient and does not keep people from infecting others or becoming reinfected, requiring another IV.

“Getting the vaccine helps people beyond yourself; it helps the community, too,” he notes. “There’s just a strong argument for getting the vaccine. I obviously have a very biased opinion, but I would hope I have more of a scientific or expert opinion, but that doesn’t seem to matter these days.”
 

Vaccine resistance still remains for some

Seth Thurman, an IT technician from Mount Pleasant, Tex., acknowledges he was hesitant to get the vaccine at first because he felt it was fast-tracked, “experimental,” might cause unknown side effects, was developed quickly, and was being pushed by government officials.

“I shared the same sentiments as a lot of other people [as] some of the reasons why I might have been hesitant in the beginning to get the vaccine, says Mr. Thurman, 47. “A lot of people don’t trust what’s out there, maybe what the government is pushing, so I was taking a wait-and-see approach.”

In August, he relented and received the first of the two-shot Moderna vaccine. But several weeks later, he developed COVID and took his doctor’s advice to receive antibody therapy at Titus Regional Medical Center.

The results were almost immediate.

“I noticed within just a few hours of getting that infusion I was feeling better,” he says. “And by the next day, I was feeling great. No more temperature and no cough and no loss of taste and smell. And today, I’m 100%.”

Having had COVID convinced him of the importance of getting the vaccine, and he plans to get the second dose of the shot after the prescribed 90-day waiting period.

But Mr. Jones, the Houston architect, remains unconvinced, even after suffering what he describes as a “horrible” experience with COVID.

“It’s something I’m still thinking about,” he says of the vaccine. “But I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be some sort of side effects from something that was developed so fast and had not gone through 4 or 5 years of vetting or trials. So that kind of just leaves doubt in my mind.

“And it’s just so weird that something so personal has become so public -- like people’s medical decisions now are on the front page of The New York Times. When did we think something like that would ever happen?”

The quick results of his treatment were so “remarkable” that he’d recommend it to anyone without hesitation, he says.

“If my story can help people be willing to seek out this infusion and take it early on in their COVID experience, I think it would not only save lives and keep people out of our hospitals and not overwhelm our hospital systems,” he says.

Dr. Huang agrees that the IV therapy is a great “fallback option” for people who’ve been infected, who have weakened immune systems, or can’t receive the vaccine for other health reasons. But for most people, he argues, the vaccine is the best way to go. That’s why Houston Methodist advises the shot for every patient like Mr. Jones, who’s been treated for COVID.

“Getting the vaccine is the way to go for the vast number of people,” he says.

Frederick Thurmond, MD, who oversees COVID-related care at Titus Regional Medical Center, believes it will take more than just doctors’ recommendations to move some patients to get the vaccine. The only thing that will motivate some will be contracting COVID, or knowing someone who does, he says.

“It’s clear that at least here in Texas, I swear man, you tell people they need to do something, and they just say, ‘Well, then I’m NOT going to do it,’” he says. “But once you’ve got COVID, the game becomes a whole lot more serious. And I think most people in the U.S. know someone who’s died from COVID at this point.”

Dr. Thurmond says that for some patients, stubborn resistance to legitimate medical advice persists -- on the vaccine and even treatment -- even after infection.

“We have seen more than one person avoid any medical care whatsoever after they knew they had COVID,” he says. “They languish in private and eventually come to the emergency room extremely sick and doing things with little to no medical value -- such as taking a friend’s hydroxychloroquine, random antibiotics, a horse de-worming dose of ivermectin, and gargling with Betadine and even bleach.”

But most of his patients who have the IV therapy take his advice to get the vaccine afterward.

“The only way to end the pandemic is to vaccinate everybody,” he says.

Dr. Adalja agrees.

“The monoclonal antibodies work, they are great drugs, so I think it is appropriate to praise them,” says Dr. Adalja, who’s given them to his own patients. “But it’s not appropriate to use them as an alternative to vaccination or to think, you know, don’t worry about the getting the vaccine because if you get infected and get the monoclonal antibodies to get through this -- that’s not the way to approach it.

He also worries about what he calls “dark-age mentalities” that have fueled the anti-vaccine movement, which has sought to heighten fears of modern medicine and doctors.

“The anti-vaccine movement has really capitalized on COVID-19, and it’s really a much more virulent form of the anti-vaccine movement than what we’ve seen with measles and other diseases in the past,” he notes. “And I think it’s going to be very difficult to contend with in the future, because no one thought we’d be battling the anti-vaccine movement this late in the pandemic.”

The biggest takeaway?

“When it comes to an infectious disease, prevention is always much better than treatment,” Dr. Adalja says. “If you don’t even need to get to the treatment stage because you prevent people from getting infected, that’s the goal.”

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

Weight loss of at least 15% of body weight should become the “initial principal treatment goal” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new review and proposal published by an international quartet of diabetologists.

Although this proposition currently has formal backing from just the four authors of the article published in the Lancet, their recommendation to elevate substantial weight loss to the front line of management for many patients with type 2 diabetes drew quick support from leaders of several diabetes organizations, albeit with some caveats.

“Our main message is that treatment of obesity should be the future of diabetes treatment,” summed up Ildiko Lingvay, MD, lead author of the new review and proposal, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Right now, a relatively small percentage of clinicians [who treat patients with type 2 diabetes] address obesity and know how to treat it. That has to change. Every clinician who treats diabetes needs to know how to treat obesity,” said Dr. Lingvay, a professor in the division of endocrinology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

This requires a sea change in the way clinicians approach treating patients with type 2 diabetes, which until now has generally involved “exclusive focus on glycemic control,” the authors wrote. “Practice management should refocus to effectively incorporate weight management to treat patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Successfully implementing their new, proposed change in focus “will take fundamental change,” noted Dr. Lingvay, who expressed hope that international guidelines will soon endorse this approach, an action that would be “a huge step in the right direction.”
 

Target weight-loss drugs to the right patients.

Initial reactions from representatives of several diabetes and obesity groups suggested that official endorsements of this management strategy for at least a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes may be forthcoming.

“The American Diabetes Association’s standards of care is aligned with this approach in focusing on obesity as a target of management in people with type 2 diabetes,” commented Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, vice president for health care improvement for the ADA. An “area of discussion” is the specific weight-loss target of at least 15%, because patients benefit from more modest weight losses of 5%-7%, and a target loss of 15% may not be achievable for some patients, she noted in a statement.

The ADA’s leadership and its professional practice committee will “carefully consider” the new, published proposal, added Dr. El Sayed, a diabetologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.

Similar caution over generalizability of the 15% loss target came from Stefano Del Prato, MD, president of the European Society for the Study of Diabetes.

“Not everyone responds to the same extent” to the newest pharmaceuticals for facilitating weight loss, such as the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, so the ideal would be to try to “identify patients who respond better to weight loss and can lose at least 15% of their weight. We need to improve our ability to identify patients who respond better,” said Dr. Del Prato, a professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Pisa (Italy).

Despite this, he agreed in an interview that “a significant reduction in body weight should be seen as a target for treatment of type 2 diabetes,”

“Appropriate training for obesity management is essential for those working on type 2 diabetes prevention or management,” commented Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology at the University Of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.

For some patients with type 2 diabetes “losing 10%-15% of body weight can mean their diabetes goes into remission,” and “losing even a small amount of weight can be life changing, it can help people better manage their blood sugars and blood pressure, and reduce their risk for developing diabetes complications like heart disease and sight loss,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications for Diabetes UK.

15% loss is a ‘reachable’ goal

Dr. Lingvay and coauthors acknowledged that weight loss of less than 15% can benefit many patients with type 2 diabetes, but they felt that a loss of at least 15% gives patients a realistic and potentially potent goal to strive for.

At least 15% loss “is a goal that is beneficial and reachable for many patients. Not everyone will get there, but the closer that patients get to this, or beyond, the bigger their benefit,” she explained. “There is no magic number” for exactly how much weight a patient needs to lose to improve their health. Dr. Lingvay also highlighted that weight loss is a better target for patients than remission of their diabetes because remission may no longer be possible in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes.

The review divides patients with type 2 diabetes into three subgroups: those with adiposity-related disease, which includes about 40%-70% of patients with type 2 diabetes; patients with cardiovascular disease as their most prominent comorbidity, a subgroup that includes about a third of patients with type 2 diabetes; and the remaining patients with primarily beta-cell dysfunction with a principle morbidity of hyperglycemia, comprising about 10%-20% of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients in the adiposity-related diabetes subgroup form the primary target group for interventions focused on weight loss.

Incretin-based weight-loss agents propel change.

The review also links the timing of the new recommendations to recent evidence that treatment with relatively new medications from classes such as the GLP-1 receptor agonists can produce weight loss of at least 15% in most patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those with the adiposity-related form of the disease.

“The number of patients who can achieve and maintain weight loss with lifestyle alone is limited, and while bariatric surgery is very effective [for producing substantial weight loss], only a minority of patients have access to it,” and the necessary scalability of surgery is doubtful, said Priya Sumithran, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist and leader of the obesity research group at the University of Melbourne, and a coauthor on the new review. Compelling evidence now exists that the gap between lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery can now be filled by a new generation of incretin-based agents that can safely produce substantial weight loss.

New agents that work as GLP-1 receptor agonists and on related incretin pathways “have changed how we think about treating type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay declared.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Del Prato have each been consultants to numerous drug companies. Dr. Sumithran has been an adviser to and speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk. Dr. El Sayed, Dr. Halford, and Dr. Chambers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Weight loss of at least 15% of body weight should become the “initial principal treatment goal” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new review and proposal published by an international quartet of diabetologists.

Although this proposition currently has formal backing from just the four authors of the article published in the Lancet, their recommendation to elevate substantial weight loss to the front line of management for many patients with type 2 diabetes drew quick support from leaders of several diabetes organizations, albeit with some caveats.

“Our main message is that treatment of obesity should be the future of diabetes treatment,” summed up Ildiko Lingvay, MD, lead author of the new review and proposal, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Right now, a relatively small percentage of clinicians [who treat patients with type 2 diabetes] address obesity and know how to treat it. That has to change. Every clinician who treats diabetes needs to know how to treat obesity,” said Dr. Lingvay, a professor in the division of endocrinology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

This requires a sea change in the way clinicians approach treating patients with type 2 diabetes, which until now has generally involved “exclusive focus on glycemic control,” the authors wrote. “Practice management should refocus to effectively incorporate weight management to treat patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Successfully implementing their new, proposed change in focus “will take fundamental change,” noted Dr. Lingvay, who expressed hope that international guidelines will soon endorse this approach, an action that would be “a huge step in the right direction.”
 

Target weight-loss drugs to the right patients.

Initial reactions from representatives of several diabetes and obesity groups suggested that official endorsements of this management strategy for at least a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes may be forthcoming.

“The American Diabetes Association’s standards of care is aligned with this approach in focusing on obesity as a target of management in people with type 2 diabetes,” commented Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, vice president for health care improvement for the ADA. An “area of discussion” is the specific weight-loss target of at least 15%, because patients benefit from more modest weight losses of 5%-7%, and a target loss of 15% may not be achievable for some patients, she noted in a statement.

The ADA’s leadership and its professional practice committee will “carefully consider” the new, published proposal, added Dr. El Sayed, a diabetologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.

Similar caution over generalizability of the 15% loss target came from Stefano Del Prato, MD, president of the European Society for the Study of Diabetes.

“Not everyone responds to the same extent” to the newest pharmaceuticals for facilitating weight loss, such as the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, so the ideal would be to try to “identify patients who respond better to weight loss and can lose at least 15% of their weight. We need to improve our ability to identify patients who respond better,” said Dr. Del Prato, a professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Pisa (Italy).

Despite this, he agreed in an interview that “a significant reduction in body weight should be seen as a target for treatment of type 2 diabetes,”

“Appropriate training for obesity management is essential for those working on type 2 diabetes prevention or management,” commented Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology at the University Of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.

For some patients with type 2 diabetes “losing 10%-15% of body weight can mean their diabetes goes into remission,” and “losing even a small amount of weight can be life changing, it can help people better manage their blood sugars and blood pressure, and reduce their risk for developing diabetes complications like heart disease and sight loss,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications for Diabetes UK.

15% loss is a ‘reachable’ goal

Dr. Lingvay and coauthors acknowledged that weight loss of less than 15% can benefit many patients with type 2 diabetes, but they felt that a loss of at least 15% gives patients a realistic and potentially potent goal to strive for.

At least 15% loss “is a goal that is beneficial and reachable for many patients. Not everyone will get there, but the closer that patients get to this, or beyond, the bigger their benefit,” she explained. “There is no magic number” for exactly how much weight a patient needs to lose to improve their health. Dr. Lingvay also highlighted that weight loss is a better target for patients than remission of their diabetes because remission may no longer be possible in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes.

The review divides patients with type 2 diabetes into three subgroups: those with adiposity-related disease, which includes about 40%-70% of patients with type 2 diabetes; patients with cardiovascular disease as their most prominent comorbidity, a subgroup that includes about a third of patients with type 2 diabetes; and the remaining patients with primarily beta-cell dysfunction with a principle morbidity of hyperglycemia, comprising about 10%-20% of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients in the adiposity-related diabetes subgroup form the primary target group for interventions focused on weight loss.

Incretin-based weight-loss agents propel change.

The review also links the timing of the new recommendations to recent evidence that treatment with relatively new medications from classes such as the GLP-1 receptor agonists can produce weight loss of at least 15% in most patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those with the adiposity-related form of the disease.

“The number of patients who can achieve and maintain weight loss with lifestyle alone is limited, and while bariatric surgery is very effective [for producing substantial weight loss], only a minority of patients have access to it,” and the necessary scalability of surgery is doubtful, said Priya Sumithran, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist and leader of the obesity research group at the University of Melbourne, and a coauthor on the new review. Compelling evidence now exists that the gap between lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery can now be filled by a new generation of incretin-based agents that can safely produce substantial weight loss.

New agents that work as GLP-1 receptor agonists and on related incretin pathways “have changed how we think about treating type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay declared.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Del Prato have each been consultants to numerous drug companies. Dr. Sumithran has been an adviser to and speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk. Dr. El Sayed, Dr. Halford, and Dr. Chambers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Weight loss of at least 15% of body weight should become the “initial principal treatment goal” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new review and proposal published by an international quartet of diabetologists.

Although this proposition currently has formal backing from just the four authors of the article published in the Lancet, their recommendation to elevate substantial weight loss to the front line of management for many patients with type 2 diabetes drew quick support from leaders of several diabetes organizations, albeit with some caveats.

“Our main message is that treatment of obesity should be the future of diabetes treatment,” summed up Ildiko Lingvay, MD, lead author of the new review and proposal, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Right now, a relatively small percentage of clinicians [who treat patients with type 2 diabetes] address obesity and know how to treat it. That has to change. Every clinician who treats diabetes needs to know how to treat obesity,” said Dr. Lingvay, a professor in the division of endocrinology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

This requires a sea change in the way clinicians approach treating patients with type 2 diabetes, which until now has generally involved “exclusive focus on glycemic control,” the authors wrote. “Practice management should refocus to effectively incorporate weight management to treat patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Successfully implementing their new, proposed change in focus “will take fundamental change,” noted Dr. Lingvay, who expressed hope that international guidelines will soon endorse this approach, an action that would be “a huge step in the right direction.”
 

Target weight-loss drugs to the right patients.

Initial reactions from representatives of several diabetes and obesity groups suggested that official endorsements of this management strategy for at least a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes may be forthcoming.

“The American Diabetes Association’s standards of care is aligned with this approach in focusing on obesity as a target of management in people with type 2 diabetes,” commented Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, vice president for health care improvement for the ADA. An “area of discussion” is the specific weight-loss target of at least 15%, because patients benefit from more modest weight losses of 5%-7%, and a target loss of 15% may not be achievable for some patients, she noted in a statement.

The ADA’s leadership and its professional practice committee will “carefully consider” the new, published proposal, added Dr. El Sayed, a diabetologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.

Similar caution over generalizability of the 15% loss target came from Stefano Del Prato, MD, president of the European Society for the Study of Diabetes.

“Not everyone responds to the same extent” to the newest pharmaceuticals for facilitating weight loss, such as the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, so the ideal would be to try to “identify patients who respond better to weight loss and can lose at least 15% of their weight. We need to improve our ability to identify patients who respond better,” said Dr. Del Prato, a professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Pisa (Italy).

Despite this, he agreed in an interview that “a significant reduction in body weight should be seen as a target for treatment of type 2 diabetes,”

“Appropriate training for obesity management is essential for those working on type 2 diabetes prevention or management,” commented Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology at the University Of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.

For some patients with type 2 diabetes “losing 10%-15% of body weight can mean their diabetes goes into remission,” and “losing even a small amount of weight can be life changing, it can help people better manage their blood sugars and blood pressure, and reduce their risk for developing diabetes complications like heart disease and sight loss,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications for Diabetes UK.

15% loss is a ‘reachable’ goal

Dr. Lingvay and coauthors acknowledged that weight loss of less than 15% can benefit many patients with type 2 diabetes, but they felt that a loss of at least 15% gives patients a realistic and potentially potent goal to strive for.

At least 15% loss “is a goal that is beneficial and reachable for many patients. Not everyone will get there, but the closer that patients get to this, or beyond, the bigger their benefit,” she explained. “There is no magic number” for exactly how much weight a patient needs to lose to improve their health. Dr. Lingvay also highlighted that weight loss is a better target for patients than remission of their diabetes because remission may no longer be possible in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes.

The review divides patients with type 2 diabetes into three subgroups: those with adiposity-related disease, which includes about 40%-70% of patients with type 2 diabetes; patients with cardiovascular disease as their most prominent comorbidity, a subgroup that includes about a third of patients with type 2 diabetes; and the remaining patients with primarily beta-cell dysfunction with a principle morbidity of hyperglycemia, comprising about 10%-20% of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients in the adiposity-related diabetes subgroup form the primary target group for interventions focused on weight loss.

Incretin-based weight-loss agents propel change.

The review also links the timing of the new recommendations to recent evidence that treatment with relatively new medications from classes such as the GLP-1 receptor agonists can produce weight loss of at least 15% in most patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those with the adiposity-related form of the disease.

“The number of patients who can achieve and maintain weight loss with lifestyle alone is limited, and while bariatric surgery is very effective [for producing substantial weight loss], only a minority of patients have access to it,” and the necessary scalability of surgery is doubtful, said Priya Sumithran, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist and leader of the obesity research group at the University of Melbourne, and a coauthor on the new review. Compelling evidence now exists that the gap between lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery can now be filled by a new generation of incretin-based agents that can safely produce substantial weight loss.

New agents that work as GLP-1 receptor agonists and on related incretin pathways “have changed how we think about treating type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay declared.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Del Prato have each been consultants to numerous drug companies. Dr. Sumithran has been an adviser to and speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk. Dr. El Sayed, Dr. Halford, and Dr. Chambers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A topical cream formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib was superior to its vehicle for treating vitiligo across all primary and secondary endpoints in two multicenter phase 3 trials presented together at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

On the primary endpoint of F-VASI 75 (75% improvement in the Facial and Vitiligo Scoring Index), rates were nearly four times higher at 24 weeks in one trial (29.9% vs. 7.5%; P < .0001) and more than twice as great in the other (29.9% vs. 12.9%; P < .01).

“The larger phase 3 trials confirm the previous phase 2 findings,” reported David Rosmarin, MD, vice chairman for research and education, department of dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston. These findings not only include substantial clinical efficacy but good tolerability with “no serious treatment-related adverse events,” he noted.
 

600 patients randomized

In one of the trials, called TRuE-V1, 330 patients with vitiligo were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to 1.5% ruxolitinib or vehicle applied twice daily. In the other trial, called TRuE-V2, 344 patients were randomly assigned. The participating centers were in Europe and North America.

Patients aged 12 years or older with nonsegmental vitiligo and depigmentation covering no more than 10% of the total body surface area were eligible. The mean baseline F-VASI values were 1.0. The mean total VASI (T-FASI) values were 6.5. On those enrolled, half were female, 11% were adolescents, and 73% had Fitzpatrick skin phototypes III-VI.

Ruxolitinib cream provided near-complete vitiligo clearance (F-VASI 90) on the face at 24 weeks in only about 15% of patients, but this was several times higher than the 2% achieved on vehicle in the TRuE-V1 (P < .01) and the TRuE-V2 trials (P < .05), respectively.

F-VASI 50 response rates greater than 50%

For F-VASI 50, the response rate with ruxolitinib in both studies was approximately 51%. Relative to the 17.2% response on vehicle in TRuE-v1 and 23.4% in TRuE-V2 (both P < .0001 vs. active therapy), the advantage of the topical JAK inhibitor was considered to be a clinically meaningful, not just significant from a statistical standpoint.

In fact, improvement on the 5-point Vitiligo Noticeability Scale “also supported a clinically meaningful benefit,” Dr. Rosmarin reported. When those achieving a score of 4 (much less noticeable) or 5 (no longer noticeable), the response rates at 24 weeks were 24.5% and 21.6% in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 trials, respectively. Again, these response rates were several times greater than the 3.3% (P < .001) and 6.6% (P < .01) observed in the vehicle arms of TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 (P < .01), respectively.

Treatment-related adverse events were infrequent. The most common were acne at the application site, which occurred in about 5% of patients receiving ruxolitinib (vs. 2% or fewer of those receiving vehicle) and pruritus, which also occurred in about 5% of patients. However, the rates of pruritus among those on placebo reached 4% in TRuE-V1 and 2% in TRuE-V2 trials.

In vitiligo, where there has been recent progress in understanding the pathophysiology, loss of melanocytes in immune dysregulation has been linked to activation of the JAK signaling pathway, according to Dr. Rosmarin. In the 52-week phase 2 trial with 205 patients, ruxolitinib was associated with a sustained response and no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

52-week data might show more benefit

Patients are continuing to be followed in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V-2 trials. Based on the phase 2 data and on the progressive improvement still being observed at the end of 24 weeks in the phase 3 trials, Dr. Rosmarin expects 52-week results be valuable in understanding the clinical role of ruxolitinib.

“We will be looking for further improvement in response as we follow these patients out to 1 year,” he said.

This further follow-up is important, agreed Iltefat Hamzavi, MD, senior staff physician, department of dermatology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

Despite the promise of perhaps other JAK inhibitors, “we still need to understand how long it will take for the drug to offer optimal results. We already know that is more than 24 weeks,” said Dr. Hamzavi, who has been involved in the clinical trials with this drug but was not involved with the TRuE-V1 or -V2 trials.

He also said more follow-up is needed to understand the duration of effect. He is, however, optimistic about the clinical role of this mechanism for treatment of vitiligo.

“I do think that JAK inhibitors show a lot of promise [in vitiligo] for certain locations of the body,” he said.

Given the limited treatment options for effective and prolonged improvement in vitiligo, both Dr. Hamzavi and Dr. Rosmarin indicated an effective topical cream is likely to be considered by physicians and patients to be a substantial advance.

On Sept. 21, ruxolitinib (Opzelura) 1.5% cream was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the short-term treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in children and adults ages 12 years and older – the first FDA approval of this product.

Dr. Rosmarin reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, which provided funding for the TRuE-V1 and -V2 trials. Dr. Hamzavi reported financial relationships with more than 15 companies with pharmaceutical or cosmetic products, including Incyte.

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

A topical cream formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib was superior to its vehicle for treating vitiligo across all primary and secondary endpoints in two multicenter phase 3 trials presented together at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

On the primary endpoint of F-VASI 75 (75% improvement in the Facial and Vitiligo Scoring Index), rates were nearly four times higher at 24 weeks in one trial (29.9% vs. 7.5%; P < .0001) and more than twice as great in the other (29.9% vs. 12.9%; P < .01).

“The larger phase 3 trials confirm the previous phase 2 findings,” reported David Rosmarin, MD, vice chairman for research and education, department of dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston. These findings not only include substantial clinical efficacy but good tolerability with “no serious treatment-related adverse events,” he noted.
 

600 patients randomized

In one of the trials, called TRuE-V1, 330 patients with vitiligo were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to 1.5% ruxolitinib or vehicle applied twice daily. In the other trial, called TRuE-V2, 344 patients were randomly assigned. The participating centers were in Europe and North America.

Patients aged 12 years or older with nonsegmental vitiligo and depigmentation covering no more than 10% of the total body surface area were eligible. The mean baseline F-VASI values were 1.0. The mean total VASI (T-FASI) values were 6.5. On those enrolled, half were female, 11% were adolescents, and 73% had Fitzpatrick skin phototypes III-VI.

Ruxolitinib cream provided near-complete vitiligo clearance (F-VASI 90) on the face at 24 weeks in only about 15% of patients, but this was several times higher than the 2% achieved on vehicle in the TRuE-V1 (P < .01) and the TRuE-V2 trials (P < .05), respectively.

F-VASI 50 response rates greater than 50%

For F-VASI 50, the response rate with ruxolitinib in both studies was approximately 51%. Relative to the 17.2% response on vehicle in TRuE-v1 and 23.4% in TRuE-V2 (both P < .0001 vs. active therapy), the advantage of the topical JAK inhibitor was considered to be a clinically meaningful, not just significant from a statistical standpoint.

In fact, improvement on the 5-point Vitiligo Noticeability Scale “also supported a clinically meaningful benefit,” Dr. Rosmarin reported. When those achieving a score of 4 (much less noticeable) or 5 (no longer noticeable), the response rates at 24 weeks were 24.5% and 21.6% in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 trials, respectively. Again, these response rates were several times greater than the 3.3% (P < .001) and 6.6% (P < .01) observed in the vehicle arms of TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 (P < .01), respectively.

Treatment-related adverse events were infrequent. The most common were acne at the application site, which occurred in about 5% of patients receiving ruxolitinib (vs. 2% or fewer of those receiving vehicle) and pruritus, which also occurred in about 5% of patients. However, the rates of pruritus among those on placebo reached 4% in TRuE-V1 and 2% in TRuE-V2 trials.

In vitiligo, where there has been recent progress in understanding the pathophysiology, loss of melanocytes in immune dysregulation has been linked to activation of the JAK signaling pathway, according to Dr. Rosmarin. In the 52-week phase 2 trial with 205 patients, ruxolitinib was associated with a sustained response and no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

52-week data might show more benefit

Patients are continuing to be followed in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V-2 trials. Based on the phase 2 data and on the progressive improvement still being observed at the end of 24 weeks in the phase 3 trials, Dr. Rosmarin expects 52-week results be valuable in understanding the clinical role of ruxolitinib.

“We will be looking for further improvement in response as we follow these patients out to 1 year,” he said.

This further follow-up is important, agreed Iltefat Hamzavi, MD, senior staff physician, department of dermatology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

Despite the promise of perhaps other JAK inhibitors, “we still need to understand how long it will take for the drug to offer optimal results. We already know that is more than 24 weeks,” said Dr. Hamzavi, who has been involved in the clinical trials with this drug but was not involved with the TRuE-V1 or -V2 trials.

He also said more follow-up is needed to understand the duration of effect. He is, however, optimistic about the clinical role of this mechanism for treatment of vitiligo.

“I do think that JAK inhibitors show a lot of promise [in vitiligo] for certain locations of the body,” he said.

Given the limited treatment options for effective and prolonged improvement in vitiligo, both Dr. Hamzavi and Dr. Rosmarin indicated an effective topical cream is likely to be considered by physicians and patients to be a substantial advance.

On Sept. 21, ruxolitinib (Opzelura) 1.5% cream was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the short-term treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in children and adults ages 12 years and older – the first FDA approval of this product.

Dr. Rosmarin reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, which provided funding for the TRuE-V1 and -V2 trials. Dr. Hamzavi reported financial relationships with more than 15 companies with pharmaceutical or cosmetic products, including Incyte.

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

A topical cream formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib was superior to its vehicle for treating vitiligo across all primary and secondary endpoints in two multicenter phase 3 trials presented together at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

On the primary endpoint of F-VASI 75 (75% improvement in the Facial and Vitiligo Scoring Index), rates were nearly four times higher at 24 weeks in one trial (29.9% vs. 7.5%; P < .0001) and more than twice as great in the other (29.9% vs. 12.9%; P < .01).

“The larger phase 3 trials confirm the previous phase 2 findings,” reported David Rosmarin, MD, vice chairman for research and education, department of dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston. These findings not only include substantial clinical efficacy but good tolerability with “no serious treatment-related adverse events,” he noted.
 

600 patients randomized

In one of the trials, called TRuE-V1, 330 patients with vitiligo were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to 1.5% ruxolitinib or vehicle applied twice daily. In the other trial, called TRuE-V2, 344 patients were randomly assigned. The participating centers were in Europe and North America.

Patients aged 12 years or older with nonsegmental vitiligo and depigmentation covering no more than 10% of the total body surface area were eligible. The mean baseline F-VASI values were 1.0. The mean total VASI (T-FASI) values were 6.5. On those enrolled, half were female, 11% were adolescents, and 73% had Fitzpatrick skin phototypes III-VI.

Ruxolitinib cream provided near-complete vitiligo clearance (F-VASI 90) on the face at 24 weeks in only about 15% of patients, but this was several times higher than the 2% achieved on vehicle in the TRuE-V1 (P < .01) and the TRuE-V2 trials (P < .05), respectively.

F-VASI 50 response rates greater than 50%

For F-VASI 50, the response rate with ruxolitinib in both studies was approximately 51%. Relative to the 17.2% response on vehicle in TRuE-v1 and 23.4% in TRuE-V2 (both P < .0001 vs. active therapy), the advantage of the topical JAK inhibitor was considered to be a clinically meaningful, not just significant from a statistical standpoint.

In fact, improvement on the 5-point Vitiligo Noticeability Scale “also supported a clinically meaningful benefit,” Dr. Rosmarin reported. When those achieving a score of 4 (much less noticeable) or 5 (no longer noticeable), the response rates at 24 weeks were 24.5% and 21.6% in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 trials, respectively. Again, these response rates were several times greater than the 3.3% (P < .001) and 6.6% (P < .01) observed in the vehicle arms of TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 (P < .01), respectively.

Treatment-related adverse events were infrequent. The most common were acne at the application site, which occurred in about 5% of patients receiving ruxolitinib (vs. 2% or fewer of those receiving vehicle) and pruritus, which also occurred in about 5% of patients. However, the rates of pruritus among those on placebo reached 4% in TRuE-V1 and 2% in TRuE-V2 trials.

In vitiligo, where there has been recent progress in understanding the pathophysiology, loss of melanocytes in immune dysregulation has been linked to activation of the JAK signaling pathway, according to Dr. Rosmarin. In the 52-week phase 2 trial with 205 patients, ruxolitinib was associated with a sustained response and no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

52-week data might show more benefit

Patients are continuing to be followed in the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V-2 trials. Based on the phase 2 data and on the progressive improvement still being observed at the end of 24 weeks in the phase 3 trials, Dr. Rosmarin expects 52-week results be valuable in understanding the clinical role of ruxolitinib.

“We will be looking for further improvement in response as we follow these patients out to 1 year,” he said.

This further follow-up is important, agreed Iltefat Hamzavi, MD, senior staff physician, department of dermatology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

Despite the promise of perhaps other JAK inhibitors, “we still need to understand how long it will take for the drug to offer optimal results. We already know that is more than 24 weeks,” said Dr. Hamzavi, who has been involved in the clinical trials with this drug but was not involved with the TRuE-V1 or -V2 trials.

He also said more follow-up is needed to understand the duration of effect. He is, however, optimistic about the clinical role of this mechanism for treatment of vitiligo.

“I do think that JAK inhibitors show a lot of promise [in vitiligo] for certain locations of the body,” he said.

Given the limited treatment options for effective and prolonged improvement in vitiligo, both Dr. Hamzavi and Dr. Rosmarin indicated an effective topical cream is likely to be considered by physicians and patients to be a substantial advance.

On Sept. 21, ruxolitinib (Opzelura) 1.5% cream was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the short-term treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in children and adults ages 12 years and older – the first FDA approval of this product.

Dr. Rosmarin reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, which provided funding for the TRuE-V1 and -V2 trials. Dr. Hamzavi reported financial relationships with more than 15 companies with pharmaceutical or cosmetic products, including Incyte.

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

The experience and expertise cultivated within a “regionalized” gastric cancer center appears to improve patient outcomes in this difficult tumor type, which has a relatively low 5-year survival rate in the United States, according to researchers.

The Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) Gastric-Esophageal Cancer Program was established in 2016 to consolidate the care of patients with gastric cancer and increase physician specialization and standardization.

In a retrospective study, Kaiser Permanente investigators compared the outcomes of the 942 patients diagnosed before the regional gastric cancer team was established with the outcomes of the 487 patients treated after it was implemented. Overall, the transformation appears to enhance the delivery of care and improves clinical and oncologic outcomes.

For example, among 394 patients who received curative-intent surgery, overall survival at 2 years increased from 72.7% before the program to 85.5% afterward.

“The regionalized gastric cancer program combines the benefits of community-based care, which is local and convenient, with the expertise of a specialized cancer center,” said coauthor Lisa Herrinton, PhD, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente division of research, in a statement.

She added that, in their integrated care system, “it is easy for the different physicians that treat cancer patients – including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists, among others – to come together and collaborate and tie their work flows together.”

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Gastric cancer accounts for about 27,600 cases diagnosed annually in the United States, but the overall 5-year survival is still only 32%. About half of the cases are locoregional (stage I-III) and potentially eligible for curative-intent surgery and adjuvant therapy, the authors pointed out in the study.

As compared with North America, the incidence rate is five to six times higher in East Asia, but they have developed better surveillance for early detection and treatment is highly effective, as the increased incidence allows oncologists and surgeons to achieve greater specialization. Laparoscopic gastrectomy and extended (D2) lymph node dissection are more commonly performed in East Asia as compared with the United States, and surgical outcomes appear to be better in East Asia.
 

Regionalizing care

The rationale for regionalizing care was that increasing and concentrating the volume of cases to a specific location would make it more possible to introduce new surgical procedures as well as allow medical oncologists to uniformly introduce and standardize the use of the newest chemotherapy regimens.

Prior to regionalization, gastric cancer surgery was performed at 19 medical centers in the Kaiser system. Now, curative-intent laparoscopic gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy or esophagojejunostomy and side-to-side jejunojejunostomy is subsequently performed at only two centers by five surgeons.

“The two centers were selected based on how skilled the surgeons were at performing advanced minimally invasive oncologic surgery,” said lead author Swee H. Teh, MD, surgical director, gastric cancer surgery, Kaiser Permanente Northern California. “We also looked at the center’s retrospective gastrectomy outcomes and the strength of the leadership that would be collaborating with the regional multidisciplinary team.”

Dr. Teh said in an interview that it was imperative that their regional gastric cancer centers have surgeons highly skilled in advanced minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery. “This is a newer technique and not one of our more senior surgeons had been trained in [it],” he said. “With this change, some surgeons were now no longer performing gastric cancer surgery.”

Not only were the centers selected based on the surgical skills of the surgeons already there, but they also took into account the locations and geographical membership distribution. “We have found that our patients’ traveling distance to receive surgical care has not changed significantly,” Dr. Teh said.
 

Improved outcomes

The cohort included 1,429 eligible patients all stages of gastric cancer; one-third were treated after regionalization, 650 had stage I-III disease, and 394 underwent curative-intent surgery.

Overall survival at 2 years was 32.8% pre- and 37.3% post regionalization (P = .20) for all stages of cancer; stage I-III cases with or without surgery, 55.6% and 61.1%, respectively (P = .25); and among all surgery patients, 72.7% and 85.5%, respectively (P < .03).

Among patients who underwent surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased from 35% to 66% (P < .0001), as did laparoscopic gastrectomy from 18% to 92% (P < .0001), and D2 lymphadenectomy from 2% to 80% (P < .0001). In addition, dissection of 15 or more lymph nodes also rose from 61% to 95% (P < .0001). Post regionalization, the resection margin was more often negative, and the resection less often involved other organs.

The median length of hospitalization declined from 7 to 3 days (P < .001) after regionalization but all-cause readmissions and reoperation at 30 and 90 days were similar in both cohorts. The risk of bowel obstruction was less frequent post regionalization (P = .01 at both 30 and 90 days), as was risk of infection (P = .03 at 30 days and P = .01 at 90 days).

The risk of one or more serious adverse events was also lower (P < .01), and 30-day mortality did not change (pre 0.7% and post 0.0%, P = .34).
 

Generalizability may not be feasible

But although this was successful for Kaiser, the authors note that a key limitation of the study is generalizability – and that regionalization may not be feasible in many U.S. settings.

“There needs to be a standardized workflow that all stakeholders agree upon,” Dr. Teh explained. “For example, in our gastric cancer staging pathway, all patients who are considered candidates for surgery have four staging tests: CT scan, PET scan and endoscopic ultrasound [EUS], and staging laparoscopy.”

Another important aspect is that in order to make sure the workflow is smooth and timely, all subspecialties responsible for the staging modalities need to create a “special access.” What this means, he continued, is for example, that the radiology department must ensure that these patients will have their CT scan and PET scans promptly. “Similarly, the GI department must provide quick access to EUS, and the surgery department must quickly provide a staging laparoscopy,” Dr. Teh said. “We have been extremely successful in achieving this goal.”

Dr. Teh also noted that a skilled patient navigator and a team where each member brings high-level expertise and experience to the table are also necessary. And innovative technology is also needed.

“We use artificial intelligence to identify all newly diagnosed cases of gastric [cancer], and within 24 hours of a patient’s diagnosis, a notification is sent to entire team about this new patient,” he added. “We also use AI to extract data to create a dashboard that will track each patient’s progress and outcomes, so that the results are accessible to every member of the team. The innovative technology has also helped us build a comprehensive survivorship program.”

They also noted in their study that European and Canadian systems, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs, could probably implement components of this, including enhanced recovery after surgery.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Teh and Dr. Herrinton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The experience and expertise cultivated within a “regionalized” gastric cancer center appears to improve patient outcomes in this difficult tumor type, which has a relatively low 5-year survival rate in the United States, according to researchers.

The Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) Gastric-Esophageal Cancer Program was established in 2016 to consolidate the care of patients with gastric cancer and increase physician specialization and standardization.

In a retrospective study, Kaiser Permanente investigators compared the outcomes of the 942 patients diagnosed before the regional gastric cancer team was established with the outcomes of the 487 patients treated after it was implemented. Overall, the transformation appears to enhance the delivery of care and improves clinical and oncologic outcomes.

For example, among 394 patients who received curative-intent surgery, overall survival at 2 years increased from 72.7% before the program to 85.5% afterward.

“The regionalized gastric cancer program combines the benefits of community-based care, which is local and convenient, with the expertise of a specialized cancer center,” said coauthor Lisa Herrinton, PhD, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente division of research, in a statement.

She added that, in their integrated care system, “it is easy for the different physicians that treat cancer patients – including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists, among others – to come together and collaborate and tie their work flows together.”

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Gastric cancer accounts for about 27,600 cases diagnosed annually in the United States, but the overall 5-year survival is still only 32%. About half of the cases are locoregional (stage I-III) and potentially eligible for curative-intent surgery and adjuvant therapy, the authors pointed out in the study.

As compared with North America, the incidence rate is five to six times higher in East Asia, but they have developed better surveillance for early detection and treatment is highly effective, as the increased incidence allows oncologists and surgeons to achieve greater specialization. Laparoscopic gastrectomy and extended (D2) lymph node dissection are more commonly performed in East Asia as compared with the United States, and surgical outcomes appear to be better in East Asia.
 

Regionalizing care

The rationale for regionalizing care was that increasing and concentrating the volume of cases to a specific location would make it more possible to introduce new surgical procedures as well as allow medical oncologists to uniformly introduce and standardize the use of the newest chemotherapy regimens.

Prior to regionalization, gastric cancer surgery was performed at 19 medical centers in the Kaiser system. Now, curative-intent laparoscopic gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy or esophagojejunostomy and side-to-side jejunojejunostomy is subsequently performed at only two centers by five surgeons.

“The two centers were selected based on how skilled the surgeons were at performing advanced minimally invasive oncologic surgery,” said lead author Swee H. Teh, MD, surgical director, gastric cancer surgery, Kaiser Permanente Northern California. “We also looked at the center’s retrospective gastrectomy outcomes and the strength of the leadership that would be collaborating with the regional multidisciplinary team.”

Dr. Teh said in an interview that it was imperative that their regional gastric cancer centers have surgeons highly skilled in advanced minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery. “This is a newer technique and not one of our more senior surgeons had been trained in [it],” he said. “With this change, some surgeons were now no longer performing gastric cancer surgery.”

Not only were the centers selected based on the surgical skills of the surgeons already there, but they also took into account the locations and geographical membership distribution. “We have found that our patients’ traveling distance to receive surgical care has not changed significantly,” Dr. Teh said.
 

Improved outcomes

The cohort included 1,429 eligible patients all stages of gastric cancer; one-third were treated after regionalization, 650 had stage I-III disease, and 394 underwent curative-intent surgery.

Overall survival at 2 years was 32.8% pre- and 37.3% post regionalization (P = .20) for all stages of cancer; stage I-III cases with or without surgery, 55.6% and 61.1%, respectively (P = .25); and among all surgery patients, 72.7% and 85.5%, respectively (P < .03).

Among patients who underwent surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased from 35% to 66% (P < .0001), as did laparoscopic gastrectomy from 18% to 92% (P < .0001), and D2 lymphadenectomy from 2% to 80% (P < .0001). In addition, dissection of 15 or more lymph nodes also rose from 61% to 95% (P < .0001). Post regionalization, the resection margin was more often negative, and the resection less often involved other organs.

The median length of hospitalization declined from 7 to 3 days (P < .001) after regionalization but all-cause readmissions and reoperation at 30 and 90 days were similar in both cohorts. The risk of bowel obstruction was less frequent post regionalization (P = .01 at both 30 and 90 days), as was risk of infection (P = .03 at 30 days and P = .01 at 90 days).

The risk of one or more serious adverse events was also lower (P < .01), and 30-day mortality did not change (pre 0.7% and post 0.0%, P = .34).
 

Generalizability may not be feasible

But although this was successful for Kaiser, the authors note that a key limitation of the study is generalizability – and that regionalization may not be feasible in many U.S. settings.

“There needs to be a standardized workflow that all stakeholders agree upon,” Dr. Teh explained. “For example, in our gastric cancer staging pathway, all patients who are considered candidates for surgery have four staging tests: CT scan, PET scan and endoscopic ultrasound [EUS], and staging laparoscopy.”

Another important aspect is that in order to make sure the workflow is smooth and timely, all subspecialties responsible for the staging modalities need to create a “special access.” What this means, he continued, is for example, that the radiology department must ensure that these patients will have their CT scan and PET scans promptly. “Similarly, the GI department must provide quick access to EUS, and the surgery department must quickly provide a staging laparoscopy,” Dr. Teh said. “We have been extremely successful in achieving this goal.”

Dr. Teh also noted that a skilled patient navigator and a team where each member brings high-level expertise and experience to the table are also necessary. And innovative technology is also needed.

“We use artificial intelligence to identify all newly diagnosed cases of gastric [cancer], and within 24 hours of a patient’s diagnosis, a notification is sent to entire team about this new patient,” he added. “We also use AI to extract data to create a dashboard that will track each patient’s progress and outcomes, so that the results are accessible to every member of the team. The innovative technology has also helped us build a comprehensive survivorship program.”

They also noted in their study that European and Canadian systems, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs, could probably implement components of this, including enhanced recovery after surgery.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Teh and Dr. Herrinton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The experience and expertise cultivated within a “regionalized” gastric cancer center appears to improve patient outcomes in this difficult tumor type, which has a relatively low 5-year survival rate in the United States, according to researchers.

The Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) Gastric-Esophageal Cancer Program was established in 2016 to consolidate the care of patients with gastric cancer and increase physician specialization and standardization.

In a retrospective study, Kaiser Permanente investigators compared the outcomes of the 942 patients diagnosed before the regional gastric cancer team was established with the outcomes of the 487 patients treated after it was implemented. Overall, the transformation appears to enhance the delivery of care and improves clinical and oncologic outcomes.

For example, among 394 patients who received curative-intent surgery, overall survival at 2 years increased from 72.7% before the program to 85.5% afterward.

“The regionalized gastric cancer program combines the benefits of community-based care, which is local and convenient, with the expertise of a specialized cancer center,” said coauthor Lisa Herrinton, PhD, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente division of research, in a statement.

She added that, in their integrated care system, “it is easy for the different physicians that treat cancer patients – including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists, among others – to come together and collaborate and tie their work flows together.”

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Gastric cancer accounts for about 27,600 cases diagnosed annually in the United States, but the overall 5-year survival is still only 32%. About half of the cases are locoregional (stage I-III) and potentially eligible for curative-intent surgery and adjuvant therapy, the authors pointed out in the study.

As compared with North America, the incidence rate is five to six times higher in East Asia, but they have developed better surveillance for early detection and treatment is highly effective, as the increased incidence allows oncologists and surgeons to achieve greater specialization. Laparoscopic gastrectomy and extended (D2) lymph node dissection are more commonly performed in East Asia as compared with the United States, and surgical outcomes appear to be better in East Asia.
 

Regionalizing care

The rationale for regionalizing care was that increasing and concentrating the volume of cases to a specific location would make it more possible to introduce new surgical procedures as well as allow medical oncologists to uniformly introduce and standardize the use of the newest chemotherapy regimens.

Prior to regionalization, gastric cancer surgery was performed at 19 medical centers in the Kaiser system. Now, curative-intent laparoscopic gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy or esophagojejunostomy and side-to-side jejunojejunostomy is subsequently performed at only two centers by five surgeons.

“The two centers were selected based on how skilled the surgeons were at performing advanced minimally invasive oncologic surgery,” said lead author Swee H. Teh, MD, surgical director, gastric cancer surgery, Kaiser Permanente Northern California. “We also looked at the center’s retrospective gastrectomy outcomes and the strength of the leadership that would be collaborating with the regional multidisciplinary team.”

Dr. Teh said in an interview that it was imperative that their regional gastric cancer centers have surgeons highly skilled in advanced minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery. “This is a newer technique and not one of our more senior surgeons had been trained in [it],” he said. “With this change, some surgeons were now no longer performing gastric cancer surgery.”

Not only were the centers selected based on the surgical skills of the surgeons already there, but they also took into account the locations and geographical membership distribution. “We have found that our patients’ traveling distance to receive surgical care has not changed significantly,” Dr. Teh said.
 

Improved outcomes

The cohort included 1,429 eligible patients all stages of gastric cancer; one-third were treated after regionalization, 650 had stage I-III disease, and 394 underwent curative-intent surgery.

Overall survival at 2 years was 32.8% pre- and 37.3% post regionalization (P = .20) for all stages of cancer; stage I-III cases with or without surgery, 55.6% and 61.1%, respectively (P = .25); and among all surgery patients, 72.7% and 85.5%, respectively (P < .03).

Among patients who underwent surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased from 35% to 66% (P < .0001), as did laparoscopic gastrectomy from 18% to 92% (P < .0001), and D2 lymphadenectomy from 2% to 80% (P < .0001). In addition, dissection of 15 or more lymph nodes also rose from 61% to 95% (P < .0001). Post regionalization, the resection margin was more often negative, and the resection less often involved other organs.

The median length of hospitalization declined from 7 to 3 days (P < .001) after regionalization but all-cause readmissions and reoperation at 30 and 90 days were similar in both cohorts. The risk of bowel obstruction was less frequent post regionalization (P = .01 at both 30 and 90 days), as was risk of infection (P = .03 at 30 days and P = .01 at 90 days).

The risk of one or more serious adverse events was also lower (P < .01), and 30-day mortality did not change (pre 0.7% and post 0.0%, P = .34).
 

Generalizability may not be feasible

But although this was successful for Kaiser, the authors note that a key limitation of the study is generalizability – and that regionalization may not be feasible in many U.S. settings.

“There needs to be a standardized workflow that all stakeholders agree upon,” Dr. Teh explained. “For example, in our gastric cancer staging pathway, all patients who are considered candidates for surgery have four staging tests: CT scan, PET scan and endoscopic ultrasound [EUS], and staging laparoscopy.”

Another important aspect is that in order to make sure the workflow is smooth and timely, all subspecialties responsible for the staging modalities need to create a “special access.” What this means, he continued, is for example, that the radiology department must ensure that these patients will have their CT scan and PET scans promptly. “Similarly, the GI department must provide quick access to EUS, and the surgery department must quickly provide a staging laparoscopy,” Dr. Teh said. “We have been extremely successful in achieving this goal.”

Dr. Teh also noted that a skilled patient navigator and a team where each member brings high-level expertise and experience to the table are also necessary. And innovative technology is also needed.

“We use artificial intelligence to identify all newly diagnosed cases of gastric [cancer], and within 24 hours of a patient’s diagnosis, a notification is sent to entire team about this new patient,” he added. “We also use AI to extract data to create a dashboard that will track each patient’s progress and outcomes, so that the results are accessible to every member of the team. The innovative technology has also helped us build a comprehensive survivorship program.”

They also noted in their study that European and Canadian systems, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs, could probably implement components of this, including enhanced recovery after surgery.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Teh and Dr. Herrinton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis: A Supplement to Dermatology News 2021

Read the issue including:

• Psoriasis severity redefined by expert group
• Mitigating PSA risk with biologic therapy
• Lack of diversity seen in psoriasis trials
• PSA Comorbidities effect on treatment responses

With Commentaries by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE and Alan Menter, MD

And more…

Read Now

Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis: A Supplement to Dermatology News 2021

Read the issue including:

• Psoriasis severity redefined by expert group
• Mitigating PSA risk with biologic therapy
• Lack of diversity seen in psoriasis trials
• PSA Comorbidities effect on treatment responses

With Commentaries by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE and Alan Menter, MD

And more…

Read Now

Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis: A Supplement to Dermatology News 2021

Read the issue including:

• Psoriasis severity redefined by expert group
• Mitigating PSA risk with biologic therapy
• Lack of diversity seen in psoriasis trials
• PSA Comorbidities effect on treatment responses

With Commentaries by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE and Alan Menter, MD

And more…

Read Now

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) can be classified as either luminal or basal and, as in primary tumors, the distinction has important prognostic and therapeutic implications, concludes a new report in JAMA Oncology.

Furthermore, the classification is “an important step toward better personalizing therapy for men with mCRPC,” write investigators led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

The classification is already of clinical importance in localized disease for prognosis and guides treatment, but has not until now been examined in mCRPC, they point out.

That’s probably because of the difficulty of biopsying prostate metastases, which often reside in the bone, the team adds.

The team retrospectively reviewed genetic and clinical information from 634 men in four clinical trial cohorts; 45% had tumors classified as luminal and 55% were classified as basal, based on increased or decreased expression of luminal and basal gene signatures. Treatment in the cohorts was at physicians’ discretion.

Much of what the team found is similar to what’s been reported for localized disease. Namely, “that patients with luminal tumors should be considered for androgen-signaling inhibitor [ASI] therapy, and those with basal tumors could be considered for chemotherapeutic approaches given the similarity to small cell/neuroendocrine prostate cancer and the diminished benefit of androgen-signaling inhibitors,” Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues write.

Stunningly and consistent with dependence on oncogenic androgen-receptor signaling in luminal tumors, luminal patients had significantly better survival when they were treated with ASIs instead of chemotherapy, with a median overall survival of 32 vs. 8.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.27; P < .001).

Notably, luminal tumors demonstrated an increased expression of androgen-signaling genes and obtained preferential benefit for ASI therapy, compared with basal tumors.

The basal subtype included but was not exclusive to small cell/neuroendocrine prostate cancer (SCNC), “which raises the potential that non-SCNC basal tumors (the majority) may share enough similarity with their SCNC counterparts that similar chemotherapy-based treatment strategies may be effective, especially given the diminished benefit of ASI therapy,” the team writes.

Overall, the investigators say the findings “warrant further validation in larger prospective cohorts and clinical trials.”
 

Possibly practice changing

Rodwell Mabaera, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., agreed with investigators about the potential impact of the basal/luminal classifications in an accompanying editorial.

“These subtypes represent a potentially powerful tool for personalized therapeutic decision-making that may improve outcomes in mCRPC,” he writes.

Dr. Mabaera notes that “the worst survival outcome was seen among patients with luminal tumors treated with chemotherapy, suggesting a potential negative effect of chemotherapy in this subgroup.”

The authors “appropriately concluded that use of ASI would be recommended in this population. ... If confirmed, these results would be practice changing for choice of treatment in [the] luminal subtype of mCRPC.”

In basal tumors, the investigators identified genetic changes for resistance to androgen-receptor antagonists and increased dependence on DNA damage-repair pathways. That opens “the prospect that PARP inhibitors,” which block cancer cells from repairing DNA, “may be effective in this subgroup of patients,” Dr. Mabaera said.

The basal/luminal treatment duality may not completely apply, however.

That’s because there was a trend toward improved survival with ASI treatment in basal tumors (HR, 0.62; P = .07), which suggests there may still be a subset of basal tumors that are dependent on androgen pathway signaling and would benefit from ASI therapy, he said.

Regarding the difficulty of biopsying mCRPC metastases, the investigators noted that the limited intraindividual variability in biopsy results supports “the feasibility of classifying patients on [the] basis of a single biopsy of a metastatic tumor.”

The work was supported by the U.S. Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Dr. Aggarwal has served as a paid consultant to and/or has received research funding from a number of companies, including Janssen, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Mabaera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) can be classified as either luminal or basal and, as in primary tumors, the distinction has important prognostic and therapeutic implications, concludes a new report in JAMA Oncology.

Furthermore, the classification is “an important step toward better personalizing therapy for men with mCRPC,” write investigators led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

The classification is already of clinical importance in localized disease for prognosis and guides treatment, but has not until now been examined in mCRPC, they point out.

That’s probably because of the difficulty of biopsying prostate metastases, which often reside in the bone, the team adds.

The team retrospectively reviewed genetic and clinical information from 634 men in four clinical trial cohorts; 45% had tumors classified as luminal and 55% were classified as basal, based on increased or decreased expression of luminal and basal gene signatures. Treatment in the cohorts was at physicians’ discretion.

Much of what the team found is similar to what’s been reported for localized disease. Namely, “that patients with luminal tumors should be considered for androgen-signaling inhibitor [ASI] therapy, and those with basal tumors could be considered for chemotherapeutic approaches given the similarity to small cell/neuroendocrine prostate cancer and the diminished benefit of androgen-signaling inhibitors,” Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues write.

Stunningly and consistent with dependence on oncogenic androgen-receptor signaling in luminal tumors, luminal patients had significantly better survival when they were treated with ASIs instead of chemotherapy, with a median overall survival of 32 vs. 8.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.27; P < .001).

Notably, luminal tumors demonstrated an increased expression of androgen-signaling genes and obtained preferential benefit for ASI therapy, compared with basal tumors.

The basal subtype included but was not exclusive to small cell/neuroendocrine prostate cancer (SCNC), “which raises the potential that non-SCNC basal tumors (the majority) may share enough similarity with their SCNC counterparts that similar chemotherapy-based treatment strategies may be effective, especially given the diminished benefit of ASI therapy,” the team writes.

Overall, the investigators say the findings “warrant further validation in larger prospective cohorts and clinical trials.”
 

Possibly practice changing

Rodwell Mabaera, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., agreed with investigators about the potential impact of the basal/luminal classifications in an accompanying editorial.

“These subtypes represent a potentially powerful tool for personalized therapeutic decision-making that may improve outcomes in mCRPC,” he writes.

Dr. Mabaera notes that “the worst survival outcome was seen among patients with luminal tumors treated with chemotherapy, suggesting a potential negative effect of chemotherapy in this subgroup.”

The authors “appropriately concluded that use of ASI would be recommended in this population. ... If confirmed, these results would be practice changing for choice of treatment in [the] luminal subtype of mCRPC.”

In basal tumors, the investigators identified genetic changes for resistance to androgen-receptor antagonists and increased dependence on DNA damage-repair pathways. That opens “the prospect that PARP inhibitors,” which block cancer cells from repairing DNA, “may be effective in this subgroup of patients,” Dr. Mabaera said.

The basal/luminal treatment duality may not completely apply, however.

That’s because there was a trend toward improved survival with ASI treatment in basal tumors (HR, 0.62; P = .07), which suggests there may still be a subset of basal tumors that are dependent on androgen pathway signaling and would benefit from ASI therapy, he said.

Regarding the difficulty of biopsying mCRPC metastases, the investigators noted that the limited intraindividual variability in biopsy results supports “the feasibility of classifying patients on [the] basis of a single biopsy of a metastatic tumor.”

The work was supported by the U.S. Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Dr. Aggarwal has served as a paid consultant to and/or has received research funding from a number of companies, including Janssen, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Mabaera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) can be classified as either luminal or basal and, as in primary tumors, the distinction has important prognostic and therapeutic implications, concludes a new report in JAMA Oncology.

Furthermore, the classification is “an important step toward better personalizing therapy for men with mCRPC,” write investigators led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

The classification is already of clinical importance in localized disease for prognosis and guides treatment, but has not until now been examined in mCRPC, they point out.

That’s probably because of the difficulty of biopsying prostate metastases, which often reside in the bone, the team adds.

The team retrospectively reviewed genetic and clinical information from 634 men in four clinical trial cohorts; 45% had tumors classified as luminal and 55% were classified as basal, based on increased or decreased expression of luminal and basal gene signatures. Treatment in the cohorts was at physicians’ discretion.

Much of what the team found is similar to what’s been reported for localized disease. Namely, “that patients with luminal tumors should be considered for androgen-signaling inhibitor [ASI] therapy, and those with basal tumors could be considered for chemotherapeutic approaches given the similarity to small cell/neuroendocrine prostate cancer and the diminished benefit of androgen-signaling inhibitors,” Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues write.

Stunningly and consistent with dependence on oncogenic androgen-receptor signaling in luminal tumors, luminal patients had significantly better survival when they were treated with ASIs instead of chemotherapy, with a median overall survival of 32 vs. 8.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.27; P < .001).

Notably, luminal tumors demonstrated an increased expression of androgen-signaling genes and obtained preferential benefit for ASI therapy, compared with basal tumors.

The basal subtype included but was not exclusive to small cell/neuroendocrine prostate cancer (SCNC), “which raises the potential that non-SCNC basal tumors (the majority) may share enough similarity with their SCNC counterparts that similar chemotherapy-based treatment strategies may be effective, especially given the diminished benefit of ASI therapy,” the team writes.

Overall, the investigators say the findings “warrant further validation in larger prospective cohorts and clinical trials.”
 

Possibly practice changing

Rodwell Mabaera, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., agreed with investigators about the potential impact of the basal/luminal classifications in an accompanying editorial.

“These subtypes represent a potentially powerful tool for personalized therapeutic decision-making that may improve outcomes in mCRPC,” he writes.

Dr. Mabaera notes that “the worst survival outcome was seen among patients with luminal tumors treated with chemotherapy, suggesting a potential negative effect of chemotherapy in this subgroup.”

The authors “appropriately concluded that use of ASI would be recommended in this population. ... If confirmed, these results would be practice changing for choice of treatment in [the] luminal subtype of mCRPC.”

In basal tumors, the investigators identified genetic changes for resistance to androgen-receptor antagonists and increased dependence on DNA damage-repair pathways. That opens “the prospect that PARP inhibitors,” which block cancer cells from repairing DNA, “may be effective in this subgroup of patients,” Dr. Mabaera said.

The basal/luminal treatment duality may not completely apply, however.

That’s because there was a trend toward improved survival with ASI treatment in basal tumors (HR, 0.62; P = .07), which suggests there may still be a subset of basal tumors that are dependent on androgen pathway signaling and would benefit from ASI therapy, he said.

Regarding the difficulty of biopsying mCRPC metastases, the investigators noted that the limited intraindividual variability in biopsy results supports “the feasibility of classifying patients on [the] basis of a single biopsy of a metastatic tumor.”

The work was supported by the U.S. Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Dr. Aggarwal has served as a paid consultant to and/or has received research funding from a number of companies, including Janssen, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Mabaera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In this article, Gerard A. Silvestri, MD, MS, FCCP discusses guideline-recommended testing and multidisciplinary care for resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

Read More

Neither the editors of CHEST Physician® nor the Editorial Advisory Board nor the reporting staff contributed to this content.

In this article, Gerard A. Silvestri, MD, MS, FCCP discusses guideline-recommended testing and multidisciplinary care for resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

Read More

Neither the editors of CHEST Physician® nor the Editorial Advisory Board nor the reporting staff contributed to this content.

In this article, Gerard A. Silvestri, MD, MS, FCCP discusses guideline-recommended testing and multidisciplinary care for resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

Read More

Neither the editors of CHEST Physician® nor the Editorial Advisory Board nor the reporting staff contributed to this content.

Investigators in China have identified 14 immune-related genes associated with survival in osteosarcoma.

When they combined them into a risk score and added one additional factor – metastases at diagnosis – the model was an “excellent” predictor of 1-year survival, the team said (area under the curve, 0.947; 95% confidence interval, 0.832-0.972).

“The survival-associated” immune-related genes (IRGs) “examined in this study have potential for identifying prognosis in osteosarcoma and may be clinically useful as relevant clinical biomarkers and candidate targets for anticancer therapy,” said investigators led by Wangmi Liu, MD, of Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

They explained that it’s often difficult to distinguish high- and low-risk patients at osteosarcoma diagnosis. To address the issue, they analyzed the genomic signatures of 84 patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas and their associated clinical information.

The team split their subjects evenly into high-risk and low-risk groups based on a score developed from their genetic signatures. A total of 26 patients in the high-risk group (61.9%) died over a median follow up of 4.1 years versus only 1 (2.4%) in the low-risk group.

The risk score also correlated positively with B-cell tumor infiltration, and negatively with infiltration of CD8 T cells and macrophages.

Overall, 16 genes were significantly up-regulated, and 187 genes were significantly down-regulated in the high-risk group, including three survival-associated IRGs: CCL2, CD79A, and FPR1.

The differentially expressed genes were most significantly associated with transmembrane signaling receptor activity and inflammatory response. The team noted that “it has been reported that inflammatory response plays a critical role in tumor initiation, promotion, malignant conversion, invasion, and metastases.”

Of the 14 survival-associated IRGs, 5 have been reported before in osteosarcoma. The other nine were deduced from computational analysis and may be potential treatment targets, including bone morphogenetic protein 8b (BMP8b). Another member of the BMP family, BMP9, has been shown to promote the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells, “which is similar to this study’s finding that BMP8b was a risk factor in osteosarcoma. Therefore, the role of BMP8b in osteosarcoma needs further research,” the team said.

“Because the database provides limited clinical information, other important factors, such as staging and grading, were not included in our analysis. Therefore, extrapolation based on the findings must be done very carefully,” they cautioned.

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others. The investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Investigators in China have identified 14 immune-related genes associated with survival in osteosarcoma.

When they combined them into a risk score and added one additional factor – metastases at diagnosis – the model was an “excellent” predictor of 1-year survival, the team said (area under the curve, 0.947; 95% confidence interval, 0.832-0.972).

“The survival-associated” immune-related genes (IRGs) “examined in this study have potential for identifying prognosis in osteosarcoma and may be clinically useful as relevant clinical biomarkers and candidate targets for anticancer therapy,” said investigators led by Wangmi Liu, MD, of Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

They explained that it’s often difficult to distinguish high- and low-risk patients at osteosarcoma diagnosis. To address the issue, they analyzed the genomic signatures of 84 patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas and their associated clinical information.

The team split their subjects evenly into high-risk and low-risk groups based on a score developed from their genetic signatures. A total of 26 patients in the high-risk group (61.9%) died over a median follow up of 4.1 years versus only 1 (2.4%) in the low-risk group.

The risk score also correlated positively with B-cell tumor infiltration, and negatively with infiltration of CD8 T cells and macrophages.

Overall, 16 genes were significantly up-regulated, and 187 genes were significantly down-regulated in the high-risk group, including three survival-associated IRGs: CCL2, CD79A, and FPR1.

The differentially expressed genes were most significantly associated with transmembrane signaling receptor activity and inflammatory response. The team noted that “it has been reported that inflammatory response plays a critical role in tumor initiation, promotion, malignant conversion, invasion, and metastases.”

Of the 14 survival-associated IRGs, 5 have been reported before in osteosarcoma. The other nine were deduced from computational analysis and may be potential treatment targets, including bone morphogenetic protein 8b (BMP8b). Another member of the BMP family, BMP9, has been shown to promote the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells, “which is similar to this study’s finding that BMP8b was a risk factor in osteosarcoma. Therefore, the role of BMP8b in osteosarcoma needs further research,” the team said.

“Because the database provides limited clinical information, other important factors, such as staging and grading, were not included in our analysis. Therefore, extrapolation based on the findings must be done very carefully,” they cautioned.

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others. The investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Investigators in China have identified 14 immune-related genes associated with survival in osteosarcoma.

When they combined them into a risk score and added one additional factor – metastases at diagnosis – the model was an “excellent” predictor of 1-year survival, the team said (area under the curve, 0.947; 95% confidence interval, 0.832-0.972).

“The survival-associated” immune-related genes (IRGs) “examined in this study have potential for identifying prognosis in osteosarcoma and may be clinically useful as relevant clinical biomarkers and candidate targets for anticancer therapy,” said investigators led by Wangmi Liu, MD, of Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

They explained that it’s often difficult to distinguish high- and low-risk patients at osteosarcoma diagnosis. To address the issue, they analyzed the genomic signatures of 84 patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas and their associated clinical information.

The team split their subjects evenly into high-risk and low-risk groups based on a score developed from their genetic signatures. A total of 26 patients in the high-risk group (61.9%) died over a median follow up of 4.1 years versus only 1 (2.4%) in the low-risk group.

The risk score also correlated positively with B-cell tumor infiltration, and negatively with infiltration of CD8 T cells and macrophages.

Overall, 16 genes were significantly up-regulated, and 187 genes were significantly down-regulated in the high-risk group, including three survival-associated IRGs: CCL2, CD79A, and FPR1.

The differentially expressed genes were most significantly associated with transmembrane signaling receptor activity and inflammatory response. The team noted that “it has been reported that inflammatory response plays a critical role in tumor initiation, promotion, malignant conversion, invasion, and metastases.”

Of the 14 survival-associated IRGs, 5 have been reported before in osteosarcoma. The other nine were deduced from computational analysis and may be potential treatment targets, including bone morphogenetic protein 8b (BMP8b). Another member of the BMP family, BMP9, has been shown to promote the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells, “which is similar to this study’s finding that BMP8b was a risk factor in osteosarcoma. Therefore, the role of BMP8b in osteosarcoma needs further research,” the team said.

“Because the database provides limited clinical information, other important factors, such as staging and grading, were not included in our analysis. Therefore, extrapolation based on the findings must be done very carefully,” they cautioned.

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others. The investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

For women with extremely dense breasts, screening with MRI alone every 4 years is cost effective and delivers the greatest benefit, the first study of its kind indicates.

Alternatively, if a woman worries that the 4-year screening interval is too long, screening mammography may be offered every 2 years, with MRI screening offered for the second 2-year interval, according to the findings. This strategy would still require the patient to undergo MRI breast cancer screening every 4 years.

“MRI is more effective not only for selected patients. It is actually more effective than mammography for all women,” editorialist Christiane Kuhl, MD, PhD, University of Aachen (Germany), said in an interview.

“But the superior diagnostic accuracy of MRI is more often needed for women who are at higher risk for breast cancer, and therefore the cost-effectiveness is easier to achieve in women who are at higher risk,” she added.

The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

DENSE trial

The simulation model used for the study was based on results from the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, which showed that additional MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue led to significantly fewer interval cancers in comparison with mammography alone (P < .001). In the DENSE trial, MRI participants underwent mammography plus MRI at 2-year intervals; the control group underwent mammography alone at 2-year intervals.

In the current study, “screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women aged 50-75 years,” explains Amarens Geuzinge, MSc, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, “and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated ... with a willingness-to-pay threshold of 22,000 euros (>$25,000 U.S.),” the investigators add.

Analyses indicated that screening every 2 years with mammography alone cost the least of all strategies that were evaluated, but it also resulted in the lowest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – in other words, it delivered the least amount of benefit for patients, coauthor Eveline Heijnsdijk, PhD, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, explained to this news organization.

Offering an additional MRI every 2 years resulted in the highest costs but not the highest number of QALYs and was inferior to the other screening strategies analyzed, she added. Alternating mammography with MRI breast cancer screening, each conducted every 2 years, came close to providing the same benefits to patients as the every-4-year MRI screening strategy, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted.

However, when the authors applied the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold, MRI screening every 4 years yielded the highest acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), at 15,620 euros per QALYs, whereas screening every 3 years with MRI alone yielded an ICER of 37,181 euros per QALY.

If decision-makers are willing to pay more than 22,000 euros per QALY gained, “MRI every 2 or 3 years can also become cost effective,” the authors add.

Asked how acceptable MRI screening might be if performed only once every 4 years, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted that, in another of their studies, most of the women who had undergone MRI screening for breast cancer said that they would do so again. “MRI is not a pleasant test, but mammography is also not a pleasant test,” she said.

“So many women prefer MRI above mammography, especially because the detection rate with MRI is better than mammography,” she noted. Dr. Heijnsdijk also said that the percentage of women with extremely dense breasts who would be candidates for MRI screening is small – no more than 10% of women.

At a unit cost of slightly under 300 euros for MRI screening – compared with about 100 euros for screening mammography in the Netherlands – the cost of offering 10% of women MRI instead of mammography might increase, but any additional screening costs could be offset by reductions in the need to treat late-stage breast cancer more aggressively.
 

‘Interval’ cancers

Commenting further on the study, Dr. Kuhl pointed out that from 25% to 45% of cancers that occur in women who have undergone screening mammography are diagnosed as “interval” cancers, even among women who participate in the best mammography programs. “For a long time, people argued that these interval cancers developed only after the last respective mammogram, but that’s not true at all, because we know that with MRI screening, we can reduce the interval cancer rate down to zero,” Dr. Kuhl emphasized.

This is partially explained by the fact that mammography is “particularly blind” when it comes to detecting rapidly growing tumors. “The fact is that mammography has a modality-inherent tendency to preferentially detect slow-growing cancers, whereas rapidly growing tumors are indistinguishable from ubiquitous benign changes like cysts. [This] is why women who undergo screening mammography are frequently not diagnosed with the cancers that we really need to find,” she said.

Although there is ample talk about overdiagnosis when it comes to screening mammography, the overwhelmingly important problem is underdiagnosis. Even in exemplary mammography screening programs, at least 20% of tumors that are diagnosed on mammography have already advanced to a stage that is too late, Dr. Kuhl noted.

This means that at least half of women do not benefit from screening mammography nearly to the extent that they – and their health care practitioners – believe they should, she added. Dr. Kuhl underscored that this does not mean that clinicians should abandon screening mammography.

What it does mean is that physicians need to abandon the one-size-fits-all approach to screening mammography and start stratifying women on the basis of their individual risk of developing breast cancer by taking a family or personal history. Most women do undergo screening mammography at least once, Dr. Kuhl pointed out. From that mammogram, physicians can use information on breast density and breast architecture to better determine individual risk.

“We have good ideas about how to achieve risk stratification, but we’re not using them, because as long as mammography is the answer for everybody, there isn’t much motivation to dig deeper into the issue of how to determine risk,” Dr. Kuhl said.

“But we have to ensure the early diagnosis of aggressive cancers, and it’s exactly MRI that can do this, and we should start with women with very dense breasts because they are doubly underserved by mammography,” she said.

The study was supported by the University Medical Center Utrecht, Bayer HealthCare Medical Care, Matakina, and others. Ms. Geuzinge, Dr. Heijnsdijk, and Dr. Kuhl have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with extremely dense breasts, screening with MRI alone every 4 years is cost effective and delivers the greatest benefit, the first study of its kind indicates.

Alternatively, if a woman worries that the 4-year screening interval is too long, screening mammography may be offered every 2 years, with MRI screening offered for the second 2-year interval, according to the findings. This strategy would still require the patient to undergo MRI breast cancer screening every 4 years.

“MRI is more effective not only for selected patients. It is actually more effective than mammography for all women,” editorialist Christiane Kuhl, MD, PhD, University of Aachen (Germany), said in an interview.

“But the superior diagnostic accuracy of MRI is more often needed for women who are at higher risk for breast cancer, and therefore the cost-effectiveness is easier to achieve in women who are at higher risk,” she added.

The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

DENSE trial

The simulation model used for the study was based on results from the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, which showed that additional MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue led to significantly fewer interval cancers in comparison with mammography alone (P < .001). In the DENSE trial, MRI participants underwent mammography plus MRI at 2-year intervals; the control group underwent mammography alone at 2-year intervals.

In the current study, “screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women aged 50-75 years,” explains Amarens Geuzinge, MSc, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, “and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated ... with a willingness-to-pay threshold of 22,000 euros (>$25,000 U.S.),” the investigators add.

Analyses indicated that screening every 2 years with mammography alone cost the least of all strategies that were evaluated, but it also resulted in the lowest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – in other words, it delivered the least amount of benefit for patients, coauthor Eveline Heijnsdijk, PhD, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, explained to this news organization.

Offering an additional MRI every 2 years resulted in the highest costs but not the highest number of QALYs and was inferior to the other screening strategies analyzed, she added. Alternating mammography with MRI breast cancer screening, each conducted every 2 years, came close to providing the same benefits to patients as the every-4-year MRI screening strategy, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted.

However, when the authors applied the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold, MRI screening every 4 years yielded the highest acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), at 15,620 euros per QALYs, whereas screening every 3 years with MRI alone yielded an ICER of 37,181 euros per QALY.

If decision-makers are willing to pay more than 22,000 euros per QALY gained, “MRI every 2 or 3 years can also become cost effective,” the authors add.

Asked how acceptable MRI screening might be if performed only once every 4 years, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted that, in another of their studies, most of the women who had undergone MRI screening for breast cancer said that they would do so again. “MRI is not a pleasant test, but mammography is also not a pleasant test,” she said.

“So many women prefer MRI above mammography, especially because the detection rate with MRI is better than mammography,” she noted. Dr. Heijnsdijk also said that the percentage of women with extremely dense breasts who would be candidates for MRI screening is small – no more than 10% of women.

At a unit cost of slightly under 300 euros for MRI screening – compared with about 100 euros for screening mammography in the Netherlands – the cost of offering 10% of women MRI instead of mammography might increase, but any additional screening costs could be offset by reductions in the need to treat late-stage breast cancer more aggressively.
 

‘Interval’ cancers

Commenting further on the study, Dr. Kuhl pointed out that from 25% to 45% of cancers that occur in women who have undergone screening mammography are diagnosed as “interval” cancers, even among women who participate in the best mammography programs. “For a long time, people argued that these interval cancers developed only after the last respective mammogram, but that’s not true at all, because we know that with MRI screening, we can reduce the interval cancer rate down to zero,” Dr. Kuhl emphasized.

This is partially explained by the fact that mammography is “particularly blind” when it comes to detecting rapidly growing tumors. “The fact is that mammography has a modality-inherent tendency to preferentially detect slow-growing cancers, whereas rapidly growing tumors are indistinguishable from ubiquitous benign changes like cysts. [This] is why women who undergo screening mammography are frequently not diagnosed with the cancers that we really need to find,” she said.

Although there is ample talk about overdiagnosis when it comes to screening mammography, the overwhelmingly important problem is underdiagnosis. Even in exemplary mammography screening programs, at least 20% of tumors that are diagnosed on mammography have already advanced to a stage that is too late, Dr. Kuhl noted.

This means that at least half of women do not benefit from screening mammography nearly to the extent that they – and their health care practitioners – believe they should, she added. Dr. Kuhl underscored that this does not mean that clinicians should abandon screening mammography.

What it does mean is that physicians need to abandon the one-size-fits-all approach to screening mammography and start stratifying women on the basis of their individual risk of developing breast cancer by taking a family or personal history. Most women do undergo screening mammography at least once, Dr. Kuhl pointed out. From that mammogram, physicians can use information on breast density and breast architecture to better determine individual risk.

“We have good ideas about how to achieve risk stratification, but we’re not using them, because as long as mammography is the answer for everybody, there isn’t much motivation to dig deeper into the issue of how to determine risk,” Dr. Kuhl said.

“But we have to ensure the early diagnosis of aggressive cancers, and it’s exactly MRI that can do this, and we should start with women with very dense breasts because they are doubly underserved by mammography,” she said.

The study was supported by the University Medical Center Utrecht, Bayer HealthCare Medical Care, Matakina, and others. Ms. Geuzinge, Dr. Heijnsdijk, and Dr. Kuhl have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with extremely dense breasts, screening with MRI alone every 4 years is cost effective and delivers the greatest benefit, the first study of its kind indicates.

Alternatively, if a woman worries that the 4-year screening interval is too long, screening mammography may be offered every 2 years, with MRI screening offered for the second 2-year interval, according to the findings. This strategy would still require the patient to undergo MRI breast cancer screening every 4 years.

“MRI is more effective not only for selected patients. It is actually more effective than mammography for all women,” editorialist Christiane Kuhl, MD, PhD, University of Aachen (Germany), said in an interview.

“But the superior diagnostic accuracy of MRI is more often needed for women who are at higher risk for breast cancer, and therefore the cost-effectiveness is easier to achieve in women who are at higher risk,” she added.

The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

DENSE trial

The simulation model used for the study was based on results from the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, which showed that additional MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue led to significantly fewer interval cancers in comparison with mammography alone (P < .001). In the DENSE trial, MRI participants underwent mammography plus MRI at 2-year intervals; the control group underwent mammography alone at 2-year intervals.

In the current study, “screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women aged 50-75 years,” explains Amarens Geuzinge, MSc, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, “and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated ... with a willingness-to-pay threshold of 22,000 euros (>$25,000 U.S.),” the investigators add.

Analyses indicated that screening every 2 years with mammography alone cost the least of all strategies that were evaluated, but it also resulted in the lowest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – in other words, it delivered the least amount of benefit for patients, coauthor Eveline Heijnsdijk, PhD, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, explained to this news organization.

Offering an additional MRI every 2 years resulted in the highest costs but not the highest number of QALYs and was inferior to the other screening strategies analyzed, she added. Alternating mammography with MRI breast cancer screening, each conducted every 2 years, came close to providing the same benefits to patients as the every-4-year MRI screening strategy, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted.

However, when the authors applied the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold, MRI screening every 4 years yielded the highest acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), at 15,620 euros per QALYs, whereas screening every 3 years with MRI alone yielded an ICER of 37,181 euros per QALY.

If decision-makers are willing to pay more than 22,000 euros per QALY gained, “MRI every 2 or 3 years can also become cost effective,” the authors add.

Asked how acceptable MRI screening might be if performed only once every 4 years, Dr. Heijnsdijk noted that, in another of their studies, most of the women who had undergone MRI screening for breast cancer said that they would do so again. “MRI is not a pleasant test, but mammography is also not a pleasant test,” she said.

“So many women prefer MRI above mammography, especially because the detection rate with MRI is better than mammography,” she noted. Dr. Heijnsdijk also said that the percentage of women with extremely dense breasts who would be candidates for MRI screening is small – no more than 10% of women.

At a unit cost of slightly under 300 euros for MRI screening – compared with about 100 euros for screening mammography in the Netherlands – the cost of offering 10% of women MRI instead of mammography might increase, but any additional screening costs could be offset by reductions in the need to treat late-stage breast cancer more aggressively.
 

‘Interval’ cancers

Commenting further on the study, Dr. Kuhl pointed out that from 25% to 45% of cancers that occur in women who have undergone screening mammography are diagnosed as “interval” cancers, even among women who participate in the best mammography programs. “For a long time, people argued that these interval cancers developed only after the last respective mammogram, but that’s not true at all, because we know that with MRI screening, we can reduce the interval cancer rate down to zero,” Dr. Kuhl emphasized.

This is partially explained by the fact that mammography is “particularly blind” when it comes to detecting rapidly growing tumors. “The fact is that mammography has a modality-inherent tendency to preferentially detect slow-growing cancers, whereas rapidly growing tumors are indistinguishable from ubiquitous benign changes like cysts. [This] is why women who undergo screening mammography are frequently not diagnosed with the cancers that we really need to find,” she said.

Although there is ample talk about overdiagnosis when it comes to screening mammography, the overwhelmingly important problem is underdiagnosis. Even in exemplary mammography screening programs, at least 20% of tumors that are diagnosed on mammography have already advanced to a stage that is too late, Dr. Kuhl noted.

This means that at least half of women do not benefit from screening mammography nearly to the extent that they – and their health care practitioners – believe they should, she added. Dr. Kuhl underscored that this does not mean that clinicians should abandon screening mammography.

What it does mean is that physicians need to abandon the one-size-fits-all approach to screening mammography and start stratifying women on the basis of their individual risk of developing breast cancer by taking a family or personal history. Most women do undergo screening mammography at least once, Dr. Kuhl pointed out. From that mammogram, physicians can use information on breast density and breast architecture to better determine individual risk.

“We have good ideas about how to achieve risk stratification, but we’re not using them, because as long as mammography is the answer for everybody, there isn’t much motivation to dig deeper into the issue of how to determine risk,” Dr. Kuhl said.

“But we have to ensure the early diagnosis of aggressive cancers, and it’s exactly MRI that can do this, and we should start with women with very dense breasts because they are doubly underserved by mammography,” she said.

The study was supported by the University Medical Center Utrecht, Bayer HealthCare Medical Care, Matakina, and others. Ms. Geuzinge, Dr. Heijnsdijk, and Dr. Kuhl have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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