User login
Don’t delay: Cancer patients need both doses of COVID vaccine
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.
Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.
The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.
The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).
The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.
Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.
“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.
“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.
The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.
These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.
“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”
Study details
Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.
There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”
To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.
The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.
The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.
All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.
The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.
The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).
T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.
Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.
Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.
The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cannabinoids may pose death risk for older patients with COPD
, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.
Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.
Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.
“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.
In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.
Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.
Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”
Dose makes a difference
All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
Potential limitations and implications
“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.
The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.
The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.
Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.
Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.
“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.
In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.
Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.
Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”
Dose makes a difference
All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
Potential limitations and implications
“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.
The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.
The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.
Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.
Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.
“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.
In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.
Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.
Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”
Dose makes a difference
All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
Potential limitations and implications
“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.
The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.
The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THORAX
Expert recommendations for targeted therapies in advanced NSCLC
The guidelines, jointly released by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Ontario Health (OH), were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The recommendations are based on results from 54 studies published or presented from Dec. 2015 to May 2020.
The new guidelines supplant ASCO’s 2017 guidelines on stage IV NSCLC. Several driver mutations were touched upon in the 2017 document, but their corresponding targeted therapies were not recommended as first-line treatment.
With substantial progress in targeted therapies since 2017, treatment decision-making in 2021 focuses on the molecular signatures of tumors and PD-L1 score, according to the authors of the current guidelines, Nasser Hanna, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations,” the authors wrote.
They noted that about a third of patients with NSCLC have known targetable genetic alterations. The Food and Drug Administration has approved therapeutics targeting seven alterations: EGFR and ALK alterations, ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions.
EGFR-mutant NSCLC
The authors’ recommendation for osimertinib as first-line therapy applies to patients who have EGFR-activating mutations in exon 19 (deletion), exon 21 L858R, or exon 20 T790M.
The authors also said osimertinib is an option for patients with other EGFR mutations. Alternatively, these patients can receive afatinib or treatments outlined in the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2020.
If osimertinib is not available for first-line treatment, other options include gefitinib, erlotinib, icotinib, gefitinib plus chemotherapy, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, or erlotinib plus ramucirumab.
The authors recommend osimertinib in the second-line setting for patients who did not receive osimertinib initially and who have a T790M mutation at the time of progression. For patients who have progressed on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and have no T790M mutation or if their disease has progressed on osimertinib, second-line treatment should be based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, according to Dr. Hanna and colleagues.
ALK-mutant NSCLC
For patients with ALK alterations, the authors recommend alectinib or brigatinib as first-line treatment. If these agents are not available, ceritinib or crizotinib should be offered.
In the second-line setting, if alectinib or brigatinib were given initially, lorlatinib may be offered. If crizotinib was given as first-line therapy, then alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib should be offered.
If crizotinib was given in the first-line setting and alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib were given in the second-line setting, third-line treatment should be lorlatinib or standard treatment based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline.
Other mutations
For stage IV NSCLC patients with alterations in ROS1, BRAF, RET, MET, or NTRK, the authors recommend either targeted or standard nontargeted therapy upfront, with the approach not given first-line used in the second line.
“It is unknown if improved outcomes would be seen when comparing standard nondriver mutation treatment with using the targeted therapy in the first- or second-line setting,” the authors wrote.
They noted that the recommendations for EGFR-activating mutations and ALK fusions are based on results from phase 3 trials, but recommendations for other targetable mutations are supported by phase 2 single-arm data.
The authors also noted promising reports for agents aimed at other molecular targets, including aberrations in KRAS, HER2, and NRG-1.
“Although there are insufficient data to recommend targeted therapy in these and other subgroups at the time of this guideline update, we anticipate rapid evolution of the evidence and availability of targeted therapies in these subgroups of patients soon,” the authors wrote.
Cost considerations
The authors noted that cost is a consideration when deciding on treatment, and costs can vary widely. According to 2020 Medicare drug prices, the monthly cost of ramucirumab was $61, while the monthly cost of ceritinib was $21,107.
“Increasingly, individuals with cancer are required to pay a larger proportion of their treatment costs through deductibles and coinsurance. Higher patient out-of-pocket costs have been shown to be a barrier to initiating and adhering to recommended cancer treatments,” the authors wrote.
“Discussion of cost can be an important part of shared decision-making. Clinicians should discuss with patients the use of less expensive alternatives when it is practical and feasible for treatment of the patient’s disease,” they added.
The guidelines were funded by ASCO. The authors had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Hanna, who disclosed relationships with UpToDate, Merck KGaA, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Genentech, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals.
The guidelines, jointly released by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Ontario Health (OH), were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The recommendations are based on results from 54 studies published or presented from Dec. 2015 to May 2020.
The new guidelines supplant ASCO’s 2017 guidelines on stage IV NSCLC. Several driver mutations were touched upon in the 2017 document, but their corresponding targeted therapies were not recommended as first-line treatment.
With substantial progress in targeted therapies since 2017, treatment decision-making in 2021 focuses on the molecular signatures of tumors and PD-L1 score, according to the authors of the current guidelines, Nasser Hanna, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations,” the authors wrote.
They noted that about a third of patients with NSCLC have known targetable genetic alterations. The Food and Drug Administration has approved therapeutics targeting seven alterations: EGFR and ALK alterations, ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions.
EGFR-mutant NSCLC
The authors’ recommendation for osimertinib as first-line therapy applies to patients who have EGFR-activating mutations in exon 19 (deletion), exon 21 L858R, or exon 20 T790M.
The authors also said osimertinib is an option for patients with other EGFR mutations. Alternatively, these patients can receive afatinib or treatments outlined in the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2020.
If osimertinib is not available for first-line treatment, other options include gefitinib, erlotinib, icotinib, gefitinib plus chemotherapy, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, or erlotinib plus ramucirumab.
The authors recommend osimertinib in the second-line setting for patients who did not receive osimertinib initially and who have a T790M mutation at the time of progression. For patients who have progressed on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and have no T790M mutation or if their disease has progressed on osimertinib, second-line treatment should be based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, according to Dr. Hanna and colleagues.
ALK-mutant NSCLC
For patients with ALK alterations, the authors recommend alectinib or brigatinib as first-line treatment. If these agents are not available, ceritinib or crizotinib should be offered.
In the second-line setting, if alectinib or brigatinib were given initially, lorlatinib may be offered. If crizotinib was given as first-line therapy, then alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib should be offered.
If crizotinib was given in the first-line setting and alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib were given in the second-line setting, third-line treatment should be lorlatinib or standard treatment based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline.
Other mutations
For stage IV NSCLC patients with alterations in ROS1, BRAF, RET, MET, or NTRK, the authors recommend either targeted or standard nontargeted therapy upfront, with the approach not given first-line used in the second line.
“It is unknown if improved outcomes would be seen when comparing standard nondriver mutation treatment with using the targeted therapy in the first- or second-line setting,” the authors wrote.
They noted that the recommendations for EGFR-activating mutations and ALK fusions are based on results from phase 3 trials, but recommendations for other targetable mutations are supported by phase 2 single-arm data.
The authors also noted promising reports for agents aimed at other molecular targets, including aberrations in KRAS, HER2, and NRG-1.
“Although there are insufficient data to recommend targeted therapy in these and other subgroups at the time of this guideline update, we anticipate rapid evolution of the evidence and availability of targeted therapies in these subgroups of patients soon,” the authors wrote.
Cost considerations
The authors noted that cost is a consideration when deciding on treatment, and costs can vary widely. According to 2020 Medicare drug prices, the monthly cost of ramucirumab was $61, while the monthly cost of ceritinib was $21,107.
“Increasingly, individuals with cancer are required to pay a larger proportion of their treatment costs through deductibles and coinsurance. Higher patient out-of-pocket costs have been shown to be a barrier to initiating and adhering to recommended cancer treatments,” the authors wrote.
“Discussion of cost can be an important part of shared decision-making. Clinicians should discuss with patients the use of less expensive alternatives when it is practical and feasible for treatment of the patient’s disease,” they added.
The guidelines were funded by ASCO. The authors had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Hanna, who disclosed relationships with UpToDate, Merck KGaA, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Genentech, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals.
The guidelines, jointly released by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Ontario Health (OH), were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The recommendations are based on results from 54 studies published or presented from Dec. 2015 to May 2020.
The new guidelines supplant ASCO’s 2017 guidelines on stage IV NSCLC. Several driver mutations were touched upon in the 2017 document, but their corresponding targeted therapies were not recommended as first-line treatment.
With substantial progress in targeted therapies since 2017, treatment decision-making in 2021 focuses on the molecular signatures of tumors and PD-L1 score, according to the authors of the current guidelines, Nasser Hanna, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations,” the authors wrote.
They noted that about a third of patients with NSCLC have known targetable genetic alterations. The Food and Drug Administration has approved therapeutics targeting seven alterations: EGFR and ALK alterations, ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions.
EGFR-mutant NSCLC
The authors’ recommendation for osimertinib as first-line therapy applies to patients who have EGFR-activating mutations in exon 19 (deletion), exon 21 L858R, or exon 20 T790M.
The authors also said osimertinib is an option for patients with other EGFR mutations. Alternatively, these patients can receive afatinib or treatments outlined in the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2020.
If osimertinib is not available for first-line treatment, other options include gefitinib, erlotinib, icotinib, gefitinib plus chemotherapy, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, or erlotinib plus ramucirumab.
The authors recommend osimertinib in the second-line setting for patients who did not receive osimertinib initially and who have a T790M mutation at the time of progression. For patients who have progressed on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and have no T790M mutation or if their disease has progressed on osimertinib, second-line treatment should be based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline, according to Dr. Hanna and colleagues.
ALK-mutant NSCLC
For patients with ALK alterations, the authors recommend alectinib or brigatinib as first-line treatment. If these agents are not available, ceritinib or crizotinib should be offered.
In the second-line setting, if alectinib or brigatinib were given initially, lorlatinib may be offered. If crizotinib was given as first-line therapy, then alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib should be offered.
If crizotinib was given in the first-line setting and alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib were given in the second-line setting, third-line treatment should be lorlatinib or standard treatment based on the ASCO/OH nondriver mutation guideline.
Other mutations
For stage IV NSCLC patients with alterations in ROS1, BRAF, RET, MET, or NTRK, the authors recommend either targeted or standard nontargeted therapy upfront, with the approach not given first-line used in the second line.
“It is unknown if improved outcomes would be seen when comparing standard nondriver mutation treatment with using the targeted therapy in the first- or second-line setting,” the authors wrote.
They noted that the recommendations for EGFR-activating mutations and ALK fusions are based on results from phase 3 trials, but recommendations for other targetable mutations are supported by phase 2 single-arm data.
The authors also noted promising reports for agents aimed at other molecular targets, including aberrations in KRAS, HER2, and NRG-1.
“Although there are insufficient data to recommend targeted therapy in these and other subgroups at the time of this guideline update, we anticipate rapid evolution of the evidence and availability of targeted therapies in these subgroups of patients soon,” the authors wrote.
Cost considerations
The authors noted that cost is a consideration when deciding on treatment, and costs can vary widely. According to 2020 Medicare drug prices, the monthly cost of ramucirumab was $61, while the monthly cost of ceritinib was $21,107.
“Increasingly, individuals with cancer are required to pay a larger proportion of their treatment costs through deductibles and coinsurance. Higher patient out-of-pocket costs have been shown to be a barrier to initiating and adhering to recommended cancer treatments,” the authors wrote.
“Discussion of cost can be an important part of shared decision-making. Clinicians should discuss with patients the use of less expensive alternatives when it is practical and feasible for treatment of the patient’s disease,” they added.
The guidelines were funded by ASCO. The authors had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Hanna, who disclosed relationships with UpToDate, Merck KGaA, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Genentech, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Hospitalist movers and shakers – March 2021
Vivek H. Murthy, MD, was named by President Joe Biden as his selection for Surgeon General of the United States. Dr. Murthy filled the same role from 2014-17 during President Barack Obama’s administration.
Dr. Murthy was a hospitalist and an instructor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital at Harvard Medical School prior to becoming surgeon general the first time. He also is the founder of Doctors for America.
David Tupponce, MD, recently was named the new president of Allegheny Health Network’s Grove City (Pa.) Medical Center. He takes over for interim president Allan Klapper, MD, who filled the position since August 2020.
Dr. Tupponce comes to Grove City Medical Center after a successful tenure as president of Central Maine Medical Center (Lewiston, Maine), where he grew its physician group and fine-tuned the hospital quality program. Prior to that, he was chief executive officer at Tenet Healthcare’s Abrazo Scottsdale (Ariz.) Campus and CEO at Paradise Valley Hospital (Phoenix, Ariz.).
Dr. Tupponce is familiar with western Pennsylvania, having earned a master’s degree in medical management from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. He also was chief resident at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
Malcolm Mar Fan, MD, has been elevated to medical director of the Hospitalist Group at Evangelical Community Hospital (Lewisburg, Pa.). In the newly established position, Dr. Mar Fan will oversee all operations for the facility’s hospitalist program.
Dr. Mar Fan has been a hospitalist at Evangelical since 2014 after completing his internist residency at Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. He has played a major role on Evangelical’s Peri-operative Glucose Management Committee and its Informatics Committee for Impatient and Outpatient Electronic Health Records.
Lyon County (Kansas) recently announced that Ladun Oyenuga, MD, has been appointed as public health officer for the county. She began her tenure on January 1.
Dr. Oyenuga is a hospitalist at Newman Regional Health (Emporia, Kan.). She is a native of Nigeria and did her residency at Harlem (N.Y.) Hospital Center. She has been with Newman since 2017.
Cherese Mari Laulhere BirthCare Center (Long Beach, Calif.) recently announced the addition of an OB hospitalist program at Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital. OB hospitalists, or laborists, care for women with obstetrical issues while in the hospital.
At Cherese Mari Laulhere, OB hospitalists will be on hand 24 hours a day to assist patients’ OB/GYNs or to fill in if the personal physician cannot get to the hospital quickly.
Hospitalists at Nationwide Children’s (Columbus, Ohio) are now providing care for children who are hospitalized at Adena Regional Medical Center (Chillicothe, Ohio).
It is an expansion of an ongoing partnership between the two hospitals. Adena and Nationwide Children’s have been working together in helping to care for children in the south central and southern Ohio region since 2011. Nationwide Children’s hospitalists will round in special care and the well-baby nursery at Adena, as well as provide education programs for Adena providers and staff.
MultiCare Health System (Tacoma, Wash.) has announced that it will expand its hospitalist program partnership with Sound Physicians, also based in Tacoma, to create a region-wide, cohesive group of providers. The goal is to help ensure efficient management of inpatient populations as a region instead of at the individual hospital level, and will allow MultiCare to implement standard tools, processes and regionwide best practices.
The hospitalist programs at Tacoma General Hospital, Allenmore Hospital and Covington Medical Center will transition to Sound Physicians on April 5, 2021. Sound hospitalists are already working at three other MultiCare facilities – Tacoma General Hospital, Allenmore Hospital, and Covington Medical Center.
Vivek H. Murthy, MD, was named by President Joe Biden as his selection for Surgeon General of the United States. Dr. Murthy filled the same role from 2014-17 during President Barack Obama’s administration.
Dr. Murthy was a hospitalist and an instructor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital at Harvard Medical School prior to becoming surgeon general the first time. He also is the founder of Doctors for America.
David Tupponce, MD, recently was named the new president of Allegheny Health Network’s Grove City (Pa.) Medical Center. He takes over for interim president Allan Klapper, MD, who filled the position since August 2020.
Dr. Tupponce comes to Grove City Medical Center after a successful tenure as president of Central Maine Medical Center (Lewiston, Maine), where he grew its physician group and fine-tuned the hospital quality program. Prior to that, he was chief executive officer at Tenet Healthcare’s Abrazo Scottsdale (Ariz.) Campus and CEO at Paradise Valley Hospital (Phoenix, Ariz.).
Dr. Tupponce is familiar with western Pennsylvania, having earned a master’s degree in medical management from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. He also was chief resident at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
Malcolm Mar Fan, MD, has been elevated to medical director of the Hospitalist Group at Evangelical Community Hospital (Lewisburg, Pa.). In the newly established position, Dr. Mar Fan will oversee all operations for the facility’s hospitalist program.
Dr. Mar Fan has been a hospitalist at Evangelical since 2014 after completing his internist residency at Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. He has played a major role on Evangelical’s Peri-operative Glucose Management Committee and its Informatics Committee for Impatient and Outpatient Electronic Health Records.
Lyon County (Kansas) recently announced that Ladun Oyenuga, MD, has been appointed as public health officer for the county. She began her tenure on January 1.
Dr. Oyenuga is a hospitalist at Newman Regional Health (Emporia, Kan.). She is a native of Nigeria and did her residency at Harlem (N.Y.) Hospital Center. She has been with Newman since 2017.
Cherese Mari Laulhere BirthCare Center (Long Beach, Calif.) recently announced the addition of an OB hospitalist program at Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital. OB hospitalists, or laborists, care for women with obstetrical issues while in the hospital.
At Cherese Mari Laulhere, OB hospitalists will be on hand 24 hours a day to assist patients’ OB/GYNs or to fill in if the personal physician cannot get to the hospital quickly.
Hospitalists at Nationwide Children’s (Columbus, Ohio) are now providing care for children who are hospitalized at Adena Regional Medical Center (Chillicothe, Ohio).
It is an expansion of an ongoing partnership between the two hospitals. Adena and Nationwide Children’s have been working together in helping to care for children in the south central and southern Ohio region since 2011. Nationwide Children’s hospitalists will round in special care and the well-baby nursery at Adena, as well as provide education programs for Adena providers and staff.
MultiCare Health System (Tacoma, Wash.) has announced that it will expand its hospitalist program partnership with Sound Physicians, also based in Tacoma, to create a region-wide, cohesive group of providers. The goal is to help ensure efficient management of inpatient populations as a region instead of at the individual hospital level, and will allow MultiCare to implement standard tools, processes and regionwide best practices.
The hospitalist programs at Tacoma General Hospital, Allenmore Hospital and Covington Medical Center will transition to Sound Physicians on April 5, 2021. Sound hospitalists are already working at three other MultiCare facilities – Tacoma General Hospital, Allenmore Hospital, and Covington Medical Center.
Vivek H. Murthy, MD, was named by President Joe Biden as his selection for Surgeon General of the United States. Dr. Murthy filled the same role from 2014-17 during President Barack Obama’s administration.
Dr. Murthy was a hospitalist and an instructor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital at Harvard Medical School prior to becoming surgeon general the first time. He also is the founder of Doctors for America.
David Tupponce, MD, recently was named the new president of Allegheny Health Network’s Grove City (Pa.) Medical Center. He takes over for interim president Allan Klapper, MD, who filled the position since August 2020.
Dr. Tupponce comes to Grove City Medical Center after a successful tenure as president of Central Maine Medical Center (Lewiston, Maine), where he grew its physician group and fine-tuned the hospital quality program. Prior to that, he was chief executive officer at Tenet Healthcare’s Abrazo Scottsdale (Ariz.) Campus and CEO at Paradise Valley Hospital (Phoenix, Ariz.).
Dr. Tupponce is familiar with western Pennsylvania, having earned a master’s degree in medical management from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. He also was chief resident at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
Malcolm Mar Fan, MD, has been elevated to medical director of the Hospitalist Group at Evangelical Community Hospital (Lewisburg, Pa.). In the newly established position, Dr. Mar Fan will oversee all operations for the facility’s hospitalist program.
Dr. Mar Fan has been a hospitalist at Evangelical since 2014 after completing his internist residency at Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. He has played a major role on Evangelical’s Peri-operative Glucose Management Committee and its Informatics Committee for Impatient and Outpatient Electronic Health Records.
Lyon County (Kansas) recently announced that Ladun Oyenuga, MD, has been appointed as public health officer for the county. She began her tenure on January 1.
Dr. Oyenuga is a hospitalist at Newman Regional Health (Emporia, Kan.). She is a native of Nigeria and did her residency at Harlem (N.Y.) Hospital Center. She has been with Newman since 2017.
Cherese Mari Laulhere BirthCare Center (Long Beach, Calif.) recently announced the addition of an OB hospitalist program at Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital. OB hospitalists, or laborists, care for women with obstetrical issues while in the hospital.
At Cherese Mari Laulhere, OB hospitalists will be on hand 24 hours a day to assist patients’ OB/GYNs or to fill in if the personal physician cannot get to the hospital quickly.
Hospitalists at Nationwide Children’s (Columbus, Ohio) are now providing care for children who are hospitalized at Adena Regional Medical Center (Chillicothe, Ohio).
It is an expansion of an ongoing partnership between the two hospitals. Adena and Nationwide Children’s have been working together in helping to care for children in the south central and southern Ohio region since 2011. Nationwide Children’s hospitalists will round in special care and the well-baby nursery at Adena, as well as provide education programs for Adena providers and staff.
MultiCare Health System (Tacoma, Wash.) has announced that it will expand its hospitalist program partnership with Sound Physicians, also based in Tacoma, to create a region-wide, cohesive group of providers. The goal is to help ensure efficient management of inpatient populations as a region instead of at the individual hospital level, and will allow MultiCare to implement standard tools, processes and regionwide best practices.
The hospitalist programs at Tacoma General Hospital, Allenmore Hospital and Covington Medical Center will transition to Sound Physicians on April 5, 2021. Sound hospitalists are already working at three other MultiCare facilities – Tacoma General Hospital, Allenmore Hospital, and Covington Medical Center.
RA expert updates latest pathologic findings from Accelerating Medicines Partnership
Macrophages are among the most important inflammatory cells in the synovium of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to research discussed at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.
Work conducted as part of the Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (RA/SLE) Network suggests that not only do macrophages play an inflammatory role, but there may also be a subset of macrophages that have a predominantly anti-inflammatory effect.
“These are cells that are really activated and can produce a lot of proinflammatory cytokines, including TNF [tumor necrosis factor],” said Jennifer Howitt Anolik, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and cochair of the AMP RA/SLE Network.
“In addition to inflammatory mediators there’s an anti-inflammatory population which may control the disease,” she added, at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by The Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Health and Arthritis.
There are up to 15 different populations of macrophages found so far as part of a project by Fan Zhang of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Dr. Anolik revealed. Of these, three have been shown to be proinflammatory and five have been shown to be anti-inflammatory – including one of particular interest that expresses MERTK, which recent work suggests are lacking in people with RA, compared with a control population of people with osteoarthritis (OA).
Clearly, Dr. Anolik said, there is “lots more work to do to understand how those anti-inflammatory monocytes might work, understand the relationship to treatment response and treatment failure, and how to target them.”
AMP RA/SLE Network: Examining RA synovial tissue
What’s unique about the AMP’s work is that it is involving single-cell analytics in which individual cells derived from patients with RA are subjected to an array of RNA sequencing and molecular classification methods.
“If we’re able to define the cells that are driving the disease at the tissue level, this may lead to better therapeutics and more of like a precision medicine approach,” Dr. Anolik said. An important feature of the AMP’s work is that it is based on the use of existing and thus “very informative cohorts” for whom we know a lot about disease characteristics, she said.
The AMP RA/SLE Network officially formed in 2014 and is a public–private partnership between the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, several biopharmaceutical companies, and nonprofit organizations. The task was to try to accelerate discoveries that would lead to better patient care.
“The initial phase [Research Phase 0], was really about developing the procedures in a standardized way,” Dr. Anolik said. “Because we’re looking at patient joint tissue samples, we needed to access that tissue and that required developing needle biopsy approaches.” Synovial biopsy had been pioneered in the United Kingdom and become fairly standard to perform, she added, but this was not an approach that was routinely being used in the United States at the time.
In the next step, Research Phase I, researchers looked at the expression profiles of RA synovial cells in a small group of patients. In all, around 5,000 cells from the joints of up to 20 patients with RA were analyzed. What was apparent was that while there were fibroblasts, monocytes, T cells, and B cells all present to some degree, there was substantial heterogeneity among those subtypes.
“Within all the different immune cells and stromal cells, we found 18 different populations overall,” Dr. Anolik said, giving some of the top-level findings. Both single-cell RNA sequencing and mass cytometry revealed that there were greatly (16-fold) increased numbers of a population of sublining fibroblasts and a 3.3-fold increase in interleukin-1-beta-expressing proinflammatory monocytes. There was a threefold increase in a subset of B cells expressing CD11/T-bet, and a 2.4-fold increase in certain peripheral T cells.
“Interestingly, we were able to pinpoint which cells are making which kinds of inflammatory mediators like inflammatory cytokines,” Dr. Anolik said. Notably, one of the fibroblast populations and one of the B cells were prominent producers of interleukin-6.
The AMP RA/SLE Network is now in Research Phase II, looking at much greater numbers of cells (>5,000) in more than 100 samples from individual patients. It’s a “very comprehensive, big data look at RA,” according to Dr. Anolik.
Research Phase II will also see more rigorous groups of patients being examined, including those who have not had any or much exposure to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and those who have inadequately responded to methotrexate or anti-TNF drugs.
Recent AMP RA/SLE Network findings
Recent work by the AMP RA/SLE Network has shown that stromal fibroblasts can become highly inflammatory in RA.
“What’s becoming clear is that these are more than just lining of the joint or structure of the joint, they actually play an active role in the disease,” Dr. Anolik said.
There is a lot of diversity in these fibroblasts but they broadly fall into lining or sublining subtypes. Those that are proinflammatory tend to express markers such as HLA-DR and CD90, and one that is of notable interest is a subgroup of sublining fibroblasts that express Notch3. Indeed, it has been shown that the higher the number of Notch3-expressing fibroblasts there are in the joint, the greater the level of inflammation. Also, mice lacking Notch3 seem to get less arthritis than those with Notch3. This makes Notch3 an interesting potential target that no one had thought of before.
Dr. Anolik noted that some evolving concepts about T cells include evidence showing CD8-postive T cells are more abundant in the joint tissue than previously thought and, together with natural killer (NK) cells, are an important producer of interferon-gamma.
“There are some very interesting CD4 T-cell populations, including an expansion of T peripheral helper cells that may be very important in driving B-cell activation,” Dr. Anolik said. There are also many other clusters of T cells and NK cells that have unknown roles.
Over the past years, Dr. Anolik’s research had focused on the role B cells play in autoimmune disease, and one of the cells of interest are known as age-related B cells, or ABCs. High percentages of ABCs have been found in the RA synovium, and these seem to be related to disease activity as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28). These cells also seem to cluster with some of the T helper cell populations found in the joint. Another interesting target could be B cells expressing a transcription factor known as T-bet. Work in mice suggests that the absence of T-bet B cells could be associated with reduced levels of arthritis.
“One of the things that we’re really interested in about B cells, in addition to their production of autoantibodies, is that they may be important for some of the structural damage that occurs with rheumatoid arthritis,” she said.
T-bet B cells seem to have an effect on both osteoclasts and osteoblasts – activating one while inhibiting the other to have a negative effect on bone overall, she explained. However, knocking out T-bet seems to resolve this, again suggesting that T-bet B cells may be another interesting subpopulation to target.
“Overall, the AMP has been a really interesting approach. This is a massive data set. We are putting the data together now to publish, and it will be available in the public domain,” Dr. Anolik said.
Members of the AMP RA/SLE Network include: AbbVie, the Arthritis Foundation, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, the Foundation for the NIH, the Lupus Foundation of America, the Lupus Research Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Pfizer, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International.
Dr. Anolik had no disclosures.
Macrophages are among the most important inflammatory cells in the synovium of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to research discussed at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.
Work conducted as part of the Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (RA/SLE) Network suggests that not only do macrophages play an inflammatory role, but there may also be a subset of macrophages that have a predominantly anti-inflammatory effect.
“These are cells that are really activated and can produce a lot of proinflammatory cytokines, including TNF [tumor necrosis factor],” said Jennifer Howitt Anolik, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and cochair of the AMP RA/SLE Network.
“In addition to inflammatory mediators there’s an anti-inflammatory population which may control the disease,” she added, at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by The Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Health and Arthritis.
There are up to 15 different populations of macrophages found so far as part of a project by Fan Zhang of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Dr. Anolik revealed. Of these, three have been shown to be proinflammatory and five have been shown to be anti-inflammatory – including one of particular interest that expresses MERTK, which recent work suggests are lacking in people with RA, compared with a control population of people with osteoarthritis (OA).
Clearly, Dr. Anolik said, there is “lots more work to do to understand how those anti-inflammatory monocytes might work, understand the relationship to treatment response and treatment failure, and how to target them.”
AMP RA/SLE Network: Examining RA synovial tissue
What’s unique about the AMP’s work is that it is involving single-cell analytics in which individual cells derived from patients with RA are subjected to an array of RNA sequencing and molecular classification methods.
“If we’re able to define the cells that are driving the disease at the tissue level, this may lead to better therapeutics and more of like a precision medicine approach,” Dr. Anolik said. An important feature of the AMP’s work is that it is based on the use of existing and thus “very informative cohorts” for whom we know a lot about disease characteristics, she said.
The AMP RA/SLE Network officially formed in 2014 and is a public–private partnership between the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, several biopharmaceutical companies, and nonprofit organizations. The task was to try to accelerate discoveries that would lead to better patient care.
“The initial phase [Research Phase 0], was really about developing the procedures in a standardized way,” Dr. Anolik said. “Because we’re looking at patient joint tissue samples, we needed to access that tissue and that required developing needle biopsy approaches.” Synovial biopsy had been pioneered in the United Kingdom and become fairly standard to perform, she added, but this was not an approach that was routinely being used in the United States at the time.
In the next step, Research Phase I, researchers looked at the expression profiles of RA synovial cells in a small group of patients. In all, around 5,000 cells from the joints of up to 20 patients with RA were analyzed. What was apparent was that while there were fibroblasts, monocytes, T cells, and B cells all present to some degree, there was substantial heterogeneity among those subtypes.
“Within all the different immune cells and stromal cells, we found 18 different populations overall,” Dr. Anolik said, giving some of the top-level findings. Both single-cell RNA sequencing and mass cytometry revealed that there were greatly (16-fold) increased numbers of a population of sublining fibroblasts and a 3.3-fold increase in interleukin-1-beta-expressing proinflammatory monocytes. There was a threefold increase in a subset of B cells expressing CD11/T-bet, and a 2.4-fold increase in certain peripheral T cells.
“Interestingly, we were able to pinpoint which cells are making which kinds of inflammatory mediators like inflammatory cytokines,” Dr. Anolik said. Notably, one of the fibroblast populations and one of the B cells were prominent producers of interleukin-6.
The AMP RA/SLE Network is now in Research Phase II, looking at much greater numbers of cells (>5,000) in more than 100 samples from individual patients. It’s a “very comprehensive, big data look at RA,” according to Dr. Anolik.
Research Phase II will also see more rigorous groups of patients being examined, including those who have not had any or much exposure to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and those who have inadequately responded to methotrexate or anti-TNF drugs.
Recent AMP RA/SLE Network findings
Recent work by the AMP RA/SLE Network has shown that stromal fibroblasts can become highly inflammatory in RA.
“What’s becoming clear is that these are more than just lining of the joint or structure of the joint, they actually play an active role in the disease,” Dr. Anolik said.
There is a lot of diversity in these fibroblasts but they broadly fall into lining or sublining subtypes. Those that are proinflammatory tend to express markers such as HLA-DR and CD90, and one that is of notable interest is a subgroup of sublining fibroblasts that express Notch3. Indeed, it has been shown that the higher the number of Notch3-expressing fibroblasts there are in the joint, the greater the level of inflammation. Also, mice lacking Notch3 seem to get less arthritis than those with Notch3. This makes Notch3 an interesting potential target that no one had thought of before.
Dr. Anolik noted that some evolving concepts about T cells include evidence showing CD8-postive T cells are more abundant in the joint tissue than previously thought and, together with natural killer (NK) cells, are an important producer of interferon-gamma.
“There are some very interesting CD4 T-cell populations, including an expansion of T peripheral helper cells that may be very important in driving B-cell activation,” Dr. Anolik said. There are also many other clusters of T cells and NK cells that have unknown roles.
Over the past years, Dr. Anolik’s research had focused on the role B cells play in autoimmune disease, and one of the cells of interest are known as age-related B cells, or ABCs. High percentages of ABCs have been found in the RA synovium, and these seem to be related to disease activity as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28). These cells also seem to cluster with some of the T helper cell populations found in the joint. Another interesting target could be B cells expressing a transcription factor known as T-bet. Work in mice suggests that the absence of T-bet B cells could be associated with reduced levels of arthritis.
“One of the things that we’re really interested in about B cells, in addition to their production of autoantibodies, is that they may be important for some of the structural damage that occurs with rheumatoid arthritis,” she said.
T-bet B cells seem to have an effect on both osteoclasts and osteoblasts – activating one while inhibiting the other to have a negative effect on bone overall, she explained. However, knocking out T-bet seems to resolve this, again suggesting that T-bet B cells may be another interesting subpopulation to target.
“Overall, the AMP has been a really interesting approach. This is a massive data set. We are putting the data together now to publish, and it will be available in the public domain,” Dr. Anolik said.
Members of the AMP RA/SLE Network include: AbbVie, the Arthritis Foundation, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, the Foundation for the NIH, the Lupus Foundation of America, the Lupus Research Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Pfizer, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International.
Dr. Anolik had no disclosures.
Macrophages are among the most important inflammatory cells in the synovium of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to research discussed at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.
Work conducted as part of the Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (RA/SLE) Network suggests that not only do macrophages play an inflammatory role, but there may also be a subset of macrophages that have a predominantly anti-inflammatory effect.
“These are cells that are really activated and can produce a lot of proinflammatory cytokines, including TNF [tumor necrosis factor],” said Jennifer Howitt Anolik, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and cochair of the AMP RA/SLE Network.
“In addition to inflammatory mediators there’s an anti-inflammatory population which may control the disease,” she added, at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by The Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Health and Arthritis.
There are up to 15 different populations of macrophages found so far as part of a project by Fan Zhang of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Dr. Anolik revealed. Of these, three have been shown to be proinflammatory and five have been shown to be anti-inflammatory – including one of particular interest that expresses MERTK, which recent work suggests are lacking in people with RA, compared with a control population of people with osteoarthritis (OA).
Clearly, Dr. Anolik said, there is “lots more work to do to understand how those anti-inflammatory monocytes might work, understand the relationship to treatment response and treatment failure, and how to target them.”
AMP RA/SLE Network: Examining RA synovial tissue
What’s unique about the AMP’s work is that it is involving single-cell analytics in which individual cells derived from patients with RA are subjected to an array of RNA sequencing and molecular classification methods.
“If we’re able to define the cells that are driving the disease at the tissue level, this may lead to better therapeutics and more of like a precision medicine approach,” Dr. Anolik said. An important feature of the AMP’s work is that it is based on the use of existing and thus “very informative cohorts” for whom we know a lot about disease characteristics, she said.
The AMP RA/SLE Network officially formed in 2014 and is a public–private partnership between the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, several biopharmaceutical companies, and nonprofit organizations. The task was to try to accelerate discoveries that would lead to better patient care.
“The initial phase [Research Phase 0], was really about developing the procedures in a standardized way,” Dr. Anolik said. “Because we’re looking at patient joint tissue samples, we needed to access that tissue and that required developing needle biopsy approaches.” Synovial biopsy had been pioneered in the United Kingdom and become fairly standard to perform, she added, but this was not an approach that was routinely being used in the United States at the time.
In the next step, Research Phase I, researchers looked at the expression profiles of RA synovial cells in a small group of patients. In all, around 5,000 cells from the joints of up to 20 patients with RA were analyzed. What was apparent was that while there were fibroblasts, monocytes, T cells, and B cells all present to some degree, there was substantial heterogeneity among those subtypes.
“Within all the different immune cells and stromal cells, we found 18 different populations overall,” Dr. Anolik said, giving some of the top-level findings. Both single-cell RNA sequencing and mass cytometry revealed that there were greatly (16-fold) increased numbers of a population of sublining fibroblasts and a 3.3-fold increase in interleukin-1-beta-expressing proinflammatory monocytes. There was a threefold increase in a subset of B cells expressing CD11/T-bet, and a 2.4-fold increase in certain peripheral T cells.
“Interestingly, we were able to pinpoint which cells are making which kinds of inflammatory mediators like inflammatory cytokines,” Dr. Anolik said. Notably, one of the fibroblast populations and one of the B cells were prominent producers of interleukin-6.
The AMP RA/SLE Network is now in Research Phase II, looking at much greater numbers of cells (>5,000) in more than 100 samples from individual patients. It’s a “very comprehensive, big data look at RA,” according to Dr. Anolik.
Research Phase II will also see more rigorous groups of patients being examined, including those who have not had any or much exposure to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and those who have inadequately responded to methotrexate or anti-TNF drugs.
Recent AMP RA/SLE Network findings
Recent work by the AMP RA/SLE Network has shown that stromal fibroblasts can become highly inflammatory in RA.
“What’s becoming clear is that these are more than just lining of the joint or structure of the joint, they actually play an active role in the disease,” Dr. Anolik said.
There is a lot of diversity in these fibroblasts but they broadly fall into lining or sublining subtypes. Those that are proinflammatory tend to express markers such as HLA-DR and CD90, and one that is of notable interest is a subgroup of sublining fibroblasts that express Notch3. Indeed, it has been shown that the higher the number of Notch3-expressing fibroblasts there are in the joint, the greater the level of inflammation. Also, mice lacking Notch3 seem to get less arthritis than those with Notch3. This makes Notch3 an interesting potential target that no one had thought of before.
Dr. Anolik noted that some evolving concepts about T cells include evidence showing CD8-postive T cells are more abundant in the joint tissue than previously thought and, together with natural killer (NK) cells, are an important producer of interferon-gamma.
“There are some very interesting CD4 T-cell populations, including an expansion of T peripheral helper cells that may be very important in driving B-cell activation,” Dr. Anolik said. There are also many other clusters of T cells and NK cells that have unknown roles.
Over the past years, Dr. Anolik’s research had focused on the role B cells play in autoimmune disease, and one of the cells of interest are known as age-related B cells, or ABCs. High percentages of ABCs have been found in the RA synovium, and these seem to be related to disease activity as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28). These cells also seem to cluster with some of the T helper cell populations found in the joint. Another interesting target could be B cells expressing a transcription factor known as T-bet. Work in mice suggests that the absence of T-bet B cells could be associated with reduced levels of arthritis.
“One of the things that we’re really interested in about B cells, in addition to their production of autoantibodies, is that they may be important for some of the structural damage that occurs with rheumatoid arthritis,” she said.
T-bet B cells seem to have an effect on both osteoclasts and osteoblasts – activating one while inhibiting the other to have a negative effect on bone overall, she explained. However, knocking out T-bet seems to resolve this, again suggesting that T-bet B cells may be another interesting subpopulation to target.
“Overall, the AMP has been a really interesting approach. This is a massive data set. We are putting the data together now to publish, and it will be available in the public domain,” Dr. Anolik said.
Members of the AMP RA/SLE Network include: AbbVie, the Arthritis Foundation, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, the Foundation for the NIH, the Lupus Foundation of America, the Lupus Research Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Pfizer, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International.
Dr. Anolik had no disclosures.
FROM CARC 2021
Target-lesion failure reduced 2 years after MI with biodegradable stent
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM CRT 2021
First pill for COVID-19 could be ready by year’s end
New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.
Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.
Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.
Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.
In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.
After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.
Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.
The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.
A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.
The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.
“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.
Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.
Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
Urgent need for oral agents
Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.
“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.
Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.
“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.
Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.
There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.
“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.
She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.
“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.
Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.
One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.
Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.
“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”
But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.
“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat
Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.
“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”
Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.
“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.
Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.
The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.
The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.
The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.
The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.
And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.
Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.
Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.
Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.
In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.
After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.
Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.
The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.
A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.
The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.
“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.
Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.
Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
Urgent need for oral agents
Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.
“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.
Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.
“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.
Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.
There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.
“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.
She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.
“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.
Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.
One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.
Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.
“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”
But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.
“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat
Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.
“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”
Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.
“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.
Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.
The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.
The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.
The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.
The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.
And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.
Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.
Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.
Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.
In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.
After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.
Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.
The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.
A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.
The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.
“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.
Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.
Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
Urgent need for oral agents
Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.
“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.
Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.
“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.
Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.
There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.
“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.
She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.
“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.
Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.
One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.
Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.
“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”
But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.
“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat
Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.
“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”
Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.
“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.
Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.
The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.
The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.
The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.
The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.
And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Point-Counterpoint: The future of rheumatology is sub-subspecialization
Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD
The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.
The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.
The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.
Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.
“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.
The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD
Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.
We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?
Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.
Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.
The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.
Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD
The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.
The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.
The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.
Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.
“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.
The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD
Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.
We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?
Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.
Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.
The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.
Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD
The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.
The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.
The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.
Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.
“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.
The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD
Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.
We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?
Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.
Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.
The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.
FROM RWCS 2021
Clinical Edge Commentary: CML March 2021
Although TFR is a reality on today's management of CML patients, it is important to emphasize a proper molecular monitoring after TKI discontinuation following the current NCCN and ELN guidelines. However, late relapses may occur after one year of therapy, although there are uncommon. In a recent letter to the editor in the journal Leukemia, investigators that participated in the EURO-SKI trial planned to follow patients beyond the 3 years scheduled in the trial and they reported the outcomes in what they called the AFTER-SKI trial. With a follow-up of 72 months, 12 out of 111 patients (10.8%) who were in TFR at 36 months, subsequently lost MMR. What is interesting is that the molecular status at 36 months appears highly predictive of later relapse, as only 1 patient out of 98 in MR4 at month 36 lost MMR in the following 3 years. Conversely, 11 of the 13 patients not in MR4 at month 36 lost MMR during follow-up.
For older CML patients not eligible for TFR or after TFR failure, long term therapy with TKI is the only option. However, we know that many patients can suffer from chronic AEs that will impact long term quality of life. A recent publication of the Italian phase III multicentric randomized OPTkIMA study aimed to evaluate if a progressive de‐escalation of TKIs was able to maintain the molecular response (MR3.0) and improve Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). 166 elderly CML patients in stable MR3.0/MR4.0completed the first year of any TKI intermittent schedule, 1 month ON and 1 month OFF. The first-year probability of maintaining the MR3.0 was 81%. No patients progressed to accelerated/blastic phase. All patients who lost the molecular response regained the MR3.0 after resuming TKI continuously, and none suffered from TKI withdrawn syndrome. However, data related with quality of life was confounded by several factors and non-conclusive, for which longer follow up will be needed.
Although TFR is a reality on today's management of CML patients, it is important to emphasize a proper molecular monitoring after TKI discontinuation following the current NCCN and ELN guidelines. However, late relapses may occur after one year of therapy, although there are uncommon. In a recent letter to the editor in the journal Leukemia, investigators that participated in the EURO-SKI trial planned to follow patients beyond the 3 years scheduled in the trial and they reported the outcomes in what they called the AFTER-SKI trial. With a follow-up of 72 months, 12 out of 111 patients (10.8%) who were in TFR at 36 months, subsequently lost MMR. What is interesting is that the molecular status at 36 months appears highly predictive of later relapse, as only 1 patient out of 98 in MR4 at month 36 lost MMR in the following 3 years. Conversely, 11 of the 13 patients not in MR4 at month 36 lost MMR during follow-up.
For older CML patients not eligible for TFR or after TFR failure, long term therapy with TKI is the only option. However, we know that many patients can suffer from chronic AEs that will impact long term quality of life. A recent publication of the Italian phase III multicentric randomized OPTkIMA study aimed to evaluate if a progressive de‐escalation of TKIs was able to maintain the molecular response (MR3.0) and improve Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). 166 elderly CML patients in stable MR3.0/MR4.0completed the first year of any TKI intermittent schedule, 1 month ON and 1 month OFF. The first-year probability of maintaining the MR3.0 was 81%. No patients progressed to accelerated/blastic phase. All patients who lost the molecular response regained the MR3.0 after resuming TKI continuously, and none suffered from TKI withdrawn syndrome. However, data related with quality of life was confounded by several factors and non-conclusive, for which longer follow up will be needed.
Although TFR is a reality on today's management of CML patients, it is important to emphasize a proper molecular monitoring after TKI discontinuation following the current NCCN and ELN guidelines. However, late relapses may occur after one year of therapy, although there are uncommon. In a recent letter to the editor in the journal Leukemia, investigators that participated in the EURO-SKI trial planned to follow patients beyond the 3 years scheduled in the trial and they reported the outcomes in what they called the AFTER-SKI trial. With a follow-up of 72 months, 12 out of 111 patients (10.8%) who were in TFR at 36 months, subsequently lost MMR. What is interesting is that the molecular status at 36 months appears highly predictive of later relapse, as only 1 patient out of 98 in MR4 at month 36 lost MMR in the following 3 years. Conversely, 11 of the 13 patients not in MR4 at month 36 lost MMR during follow-up.
For older CML patients not eligible for TFR or after TFR failure, long term therapy with TKI is the only option. However, we know that many patients can suffer from chronic AEs that will impact long term quality of life. A recent publication of the Italian phase III multicentric randomized OPTkIMA study aimed to evaluate if a progressive de‐escalation of TKIs was able to maintain the molecular response (MR3.0) and improve Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). 166 elderly CML patients in stable MR3.0/MR4.0completed the first year of any TKI intermittent schedule, 1 month ON and 1 month OFF. The first-year probability of maintaining the MR3.0 was 81%. No patients progressed to accelerated/blastic phase. All patients who lost the molecular response regained the MR3.0 after resuming TKI continuously, and none suffered from TKI withdrawn syndrome. However, data related with quality of life was confounded by several factors and non-conclusive, for which longer follow up will be needed.
MDR1 gene polymorphism tied to imatinib response in CML
Key clinical point: G2677T/A and C3435T polymorphisms of multidrug resistance protein 1 (MDR1) play a role in response to imatinib mesylate (IM) in Caucasian population with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).
Major finding: Variant T/A of G2677 marked responsiveness to IM therapy in Caucasian population under the recessive model (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; P = .01). The 3435TT genotype was significantly associated with increased resistance to IM therapy mainly in Caucasian population under dominant (OR, 1.49; P = .03) and heterozygous (OR, 1.52; P = .04) models.
Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 17 studies involving 4,494 patients with CML; majority were in chronic phase.
Disclosures: The authors did not receive any financial support for research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.
Source: Louati N et al. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2021 Feb 10. doi: 10.1177/1078155220981150.
Key clinical point: G2677T/A and C3435T polymorphisms of multidrug resistance protein 1 (MDR1) play a role in response to imatinib mesylate (IM) in Caucasian population with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).
Major finding: Variant T/A of G2677 marked responsiveness to IM therapy in Caucasian population under the recessive model (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; P = .01). The 3435TT genotype was significantly associated with increased resistance to IM therapy mainly in Caucasian population under dominant (OR, 1.49; P = .03) and heterozygous (OR, 1.52; P = .04) models.
Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 17 studies involving 4,494 patients with CML; majority were in chronic phase.
Disclosures: The authors did not receive any financial support for research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.
Source: Louati N et al. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2021 Feb 10. doi: 10.1177/1078155220981150.
Key clinical point: G2677T/A and C3435T polymorphisms of multidrug resistance protein 1 (MDR1) play a role in response to imatinib mesylate (IM) in Caucasian population with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).
Major finding: Variant T/A of G2677 marked responsiveness to IM therapy in Caucasian population under the recessive model (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; P = .01). The 3435TT genotype was significantly associated with increased resistance to IM therapy mainly in Caucasian population under dominant (OR, 1.49; P = .03) and heterozygous (OR, 1.52; P = .04) models.
Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 17 studies involving 4,494 patients with CML; majority were in chronic phase.
Disclosures: The authors did not receive any financial support for research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.
Source: Louati N et al. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2021 Feb 10. doi: 10.1177/1078155220981150.