Among diagnostic interventions recommended to manage the common CAR-T cell therapy–associated side effect of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), only electroencephalogram (EEG) shows significant therapeutic benefit — while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and lumbar puncture appear to have limited value, new research shows.

“Our results emphasize for the first time the role of EEG in the current guidelines [for ICANS] but question the need for systematic MRI and lumbar puncture,” reported the authors of the study, published in Blood Advances.

The study underscores that “EEG does more that depict insignificant anomalies and plays a key role in patient management in daily practice,” first author Mattéo Mauget, said in an interview. He is a resident in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of Rennes in France.

ICANS is among the most common of acute neurotoxicities occurring after CAR T-cell therapy, and international guidelines recommend MRI, lumbar puncture, and EEG in the management of the toxicity, which is typically treated with anti-cytokine therapy and steroids.

However, the guidelines widely vary. All recommend the use of MRI for ICANS grade 3 or higher, but fewer recommend the approach for grade 2. Meanwhile, only some recommend the use of lumbar puncture, and even fewer guidelines recommend the use of EEG.

While these measures are expensive — and in the case of lumbar puncture, invasive and burdensome for patients — the recommendations on these measures “rely on empirical practices and are only based on expert opinions with low scientific evidence,” the authors wrote.

To evaluate the interventions in a cohort of real-life patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy, the authors identified 190 consecutive patients receiving the therapy at the University Hospital of Rennes, France, between August 2018 and January 2023.

Of the patients, 62% were male and their median age was 64. Overall, 91 (48%) developed ICANS.

The majority of patients (73%) received CAR-T cell therapy for a refractory/relapsed (R/R) DLBCL (73%), and most (60%) had received the CAR-T product axicabtagene-ciloleucel (axi-cel) after two or more prior therapies.

While MRI was performed in 78% of patients with ICANS, the measure was determined to have had a therapeutic impact in just 4% of patients, despite common observations of abnormal findings.

Lumbar puncture was meanwhile performed in 47% of patients, resulting in preemptive antimicrobial agents in 7% of patients, with no infection detected.

While systematic EEG was performed in 56% of patients, the intervention led to therapeutic modifications among 16% of those patients.

“Our findings highlight some divergences between guidelines and daily practice regarding diagnostic investigations,” the authors noted.

The study “shows that EEG is the diagnostic investigation with the greatest therapeutic impact, while MRI and lumbar puncture appear to have a limited therapeutic impact,” they concluded.
 

EEG Findings

Of note, only 18% of EEGs in the cohort were normal, ranging from 50% of those with ICANS grade 1 to 6% among those with ICANS grade 4.

Encephalopathy was the most common EEG finding, observed in 45% of patients, while 6 EEGs (12%) showed seizures or status epilepticus.

Two patients with ICANS grade 2 and 3 (6% of EEG) developed seizure or status epilepticus on their EEGs, despite the absence of clinical symptoms of epilepsy, while the rate was 4 (33%) among patients with ICANS grade 4.

Among the eight (16%) patients who received therapeutic modification as the result of the EEG, seven were in the severe and life-threatening ICANS (grade 3+) group (24%).

In addition, all EEGs detecting seizure or status epilepticus resulted in an increase in antiepileptic prophylaxis with levetiracetam or the introduction of a new antiepileptics, mainly phenytoin.

Surprisingly, there were no cases of diffuse edema in the entire cohort, even among those with grade 4 ICANS, which is one of the key concerns of treating physicians managing severe ICANS, the authors noted.

A notable caveat is that EEG can be a time- and physician-consuming examination not easily accessed on a 24/7 daily practice level.

With such challenges, “[we] advocate for a close partnership between hematologists and electrophysiologists to make EEG access as easy as possible for this kind of patient, as EEG is a key game changer in patient course,” Mr. Mauget said.

Commenting on the findings, Marcela V. Maus, MD, PhD, director of the Cellular Immunotherapy Program at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, agreed that the study adds importantly to a topic in need of more data.

“This is a very interesting study that starts to provide data behind the consensus recommendations that were initially made based purely on expert opinion and collective practices,” she said in an interview.

“I think [the EEG findings] are interesting, because EEG is often the most non-specific of these tests, and I would not have predicted this result. I also think that monitoring of cerebral spinal fluid [through lumbar puncture] could have potentially higher impact if there was a way to routinely quantify and detect the CAR-T cells,” Dr. Maus said.

“Although admittedly I think this may be of greater benefit when patients present with neurologic findings outside the typical window of ICANS, such as what can occur with delayed neurologic toxicities such as Parkinsonism after BCMA-directed CAR T cells,” she added.

Senior author Guillaume Manson, MD, a hematologist also with the University Hospital of Rennes, underscored that the results shouldn’t be construed to suggest that MRI or LP should not be used in such cases, but may often not be necessary.

“Every patient’s case is different, and these findings certainly do not say that certain tests should or should not be performed,” he said in a press statement.

“We did this research to generate clinical evidence to inform guidelines that support physicians in making clinical decisions when treating patients with these complex, and sometimes severe conditions,” he added.

Dr. Manson reported relationships with BMS-Celgene, Gilead-Kite, and Takeda. Dr. Maus disclosed ties with Century Therapeutics, TCR2, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and several other companies in the field of cellular therapies.

Among diagnostic interventions recommended to manage the common CAR-T cell therapy–associated side effect of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), only electroencephalogram (EEG) shows significant therapeutic benefit — while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and lumbar puncture appear to have limited value, new research shows.

“Our results emphasize for the first time the role of EEG in the current guidelines [for ICANS] but question the need for systematic MRI and lumbar puncture,” reported the authors of the study, published in Blood Advances.

The study underscores that “EEG does more that depict insignificant anomalies and plays a key role in patient management in daily practice,” first author Mattéo Mauget, said in an interview. He is a resident in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of Rennes in France.

ICANS is among the most common of acute neurotoxicities occurring after CAR T-cell therapy, and international guidelines recommend MRI, lumbar puncture, and EEG in the management of the toxicity, which is typically treated with anti-cytokine therapy and steroids.

However, the guidelines widely vary. All recommend the use of MRI for ICANS grade 3 or higher, but fewer recommend the approach for grade 2. Meanwhile, only some recommend the use of lumbar puncture, and even fewer guidelines recommend the use of EEG.

While these measures are expensive — and in the case of lumbar puncture, invasive and burdensome for patients — the recommendations on these measures “rely on empirical practices and are only based on expert opinions with low scientific evidence,” the authors wrote.

To evaluate the interventions in a cohort of real-life patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy, the authors identified 190 consecutive patients receiving the therapy at the University Hospital of Rennes, France, between August 2018 and January 2023.

Of the patients, 62% were male and their median age was 64. Overall, 91 (48%) developed ICANS.

The majority of patients (73%) received CAR-T cell therapy for a refractory/relapsed (R/R) DLBCL (73%), and most (60%) had received the CAR-T product axicabtagene-ciloleucel (axi-cel) after two or more prior therapies.

While MRI was performed in 78% of patients with ICANS, the measure was determined to have had a therapeutic impact in just 4% of patients, despite common observations of abnormal findings.

Lumbar puncture was meanwhile performed in 47% of patients, resulting in preemptive antimicrobial agents in 7% of patients, with no infection detected.

While systematic EEG was performed in 56% of patients, the intervention led to therapeutic modifications among 16% of those patients.

“Our findings highlight some divergences between guidelines and daily practice regarding diagnostic investigations,” the authors noted.

The study “shows that EEG is the diagnostic investigation with the greatest therapeutic impact, while MRI and lumbar puncture appear to have a limited therapeutic impact,” they concluded.
 

EEG Findings

Of note, only 18% of EEGs in the cohort were normal, ranging from 50% of those with ICANS grade 1 to 6% among those with ICANS grade 4.

Encephalopathy was the most common EEG finding, observed in 45% of patients, while 6 EEGs (12%) showed seizures or status epilepticus.

Two patients with ICANS grade 2 and 3 (6% of EEG) developed seizure or status epilepticus on their EEGs, despite the absence of clinical symptoms of epilepsy, while the rate was 4 (33%) among patients with ICANS grade 4.

Among the eight (16%) patients who received therapeutic modification as the result of the EEG, seven were in the severe and life-threatening ICANS (grade 3+) group (24%).

In addition, all EEGs detecting seizure or status epilepticus resulted in an increase in antiepileptic prophylaxis with levetiracetam or the introduction of a new antiepileptics, mainly phenytoin.

Surprisingly, there were no cases of diffuse edema in the entire cohort, even among those with grade 4 ICANS, which is one of the key concerns of treating physicians managing severe ICANS, the authors noted.

A notable caveat is that EEG can be a time- and physician-consuming examination not easily accessed on a 24/7 daily practice level.

With such challenges, “[we] advocate for a close partnership between hematologists and electrophysiologists to make EEG access as easy as possible for this kind of patient, as EEG is a key game changer in patient course,” Mr. Mauget said.

Commenting on the findings, Marcela V. Maus, MD, PhD, director of the Cellular Immunotherapy Program at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, agreed that the study adds importantly to a topic in need of more data.

“This is a very interesting study that starts to provide data behind the consensus recommendations that were initially made based purely on expert opinion and collective practices,” she said in an interview.

“I think [the EEG findings] are interesting, because EEG is often the most non-specific of these tests, and I would not have predicted this result. I also think that monitoring of cerebral spinal fluid [through lumbar puncture] could have potentially higher impact if there was a way to routinely quantify and detect the CAR-T cells,” Dr. Maus said.

“Although admittedly I think this may be of greater benefit when patients present with neurologic findings outside the typical window of ICANS, such as what can occur with delayed neurologic toxicities such as Parkinsonism after BCMA-directed CAR T cells,” she added.

Senior author Guillaume Manson, MD, a hematologist also with the University Hospital of Rennes, underscored that the results shouldn’t be construed to suggest that MRI or LP should not be used in such cases, but may often not be necessary.

“Every patient’s case is different, and these findings certainly do not say that certain tests should or should not be performed,” he said in a press statement.

“We did this research to generate clinical evidence to inform guidelines that support physicians in making clinical decisions when treating patients with these complex, and sometimes severe conditions,” he added.

Dr. Manson reported relationships with BMS-Celgene, Gilead-Kite, and Takeda. Dr. Maus disclosed ties with Century Therapeutics, TCR2, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and several other companies in the field of cellular therapies.

Among diagnostic interventions recommended to manage the common CAR-T cell therapy–associated side effect of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), only electroencephalogram (EEG) shows significant therapeutic benefit — while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and lumbar puncture appear to have limited value, new research shows.

“Our results emphasize for the first time the role of EEG in the current guidelines [for ICANS] but question the need for systematic MRI and lumbar puncture,” reported the authors of the study, published in Blood Advances.

The study underscores that “EEG does more that depict insignificant anomalies and plays a key role in patient management in daily practice,” first author Mattéo Mauget, said in an interview. He is a resident in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of Rennes in France.

ICANS is among the most common of acute neurotoxicities occurring after CAR T-cell therapy, and international guidelines recommend MRI, lumbar puncture, and EEG in the management of the toxicity, which is typically treated with anti-cytokine therapy and steroids.

However, the guidelines widely vary. All recommend the use of MRI for ICANS grade 3 or higher, but fewer recommend the approach for grade 2. Meanwhile, only some recommend the use of lumbar puncture, and even fewer guidelines recommend the use of EEG.

While these measures are expensive — and in the case of lumbar puncture, invasive and burdensome for patients — the recommendations on these measures “rely on empirical practices and are only based on expert opinions with low scientific evidence,” the authors wrote.

To evaluate the interventions in a cohort of real-life patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy, the authors identified 190 consecutive patients receiving the therapy at the University Hospital of Rennes, France, between August 2018 and January 2023.

Of the patients, 62% were male and their median age was 64. Overall, 91 (48%) developed ICANS.

The majority of patients (73%) received CAR-T cell therapy for a refractory/relapsed (R/R) DLBCL (73%), and most (60%) had received the CAR-T product axicabtagene-ciloleucel (axi-cel) after two or more prior therapies.

While MRI was performed in 78% of patients with ICANS, the measure was determined to have had a therapeutic impact in just 4% of patients, despite common observations of abnormal findings.

Lumbar puncture was meanwhile performed in 47% of patients, resulting in preemptive antimicrobial agents in 7% of patients, with no infection detected.

While systematic EEG was performed in 56% of patients, the intervention led to therapeutic modifications among 16% of those patients.

“Our findings highlight some divergences between guidelines and daily practice regarding diagnostic investigations,” the authors noted.

The study “shows that EEG is the diagnostic investigation with the greatest therapeutic impact, while MRI and lumbar puncture appear to have a limited therapeutic impact,” they concluded.
 

EEG Findings

Of note, only 18% of EEGs in the cohort were normal, ranging from 50% of those with ICANS grade 1 to 6% among those with ICANS grade 4.

Encephalopathy was the most common EEG finding, observed in 45% of patients, while 6 EEGs (12%) showed seizures or status epilepticus.

Two patients with ICANS grade 2 and 3 (6% of EEG) developed seizure or status epilepticus on their EEGs, despite the absence of clinical symptoms of epilepsy, while the rate was 4 (33%) among patients with ICANS grade 4.

Among the eight (16%) patients who received therapeutic modification as the result of the EEG, seven were in the severe and life-threatening ICANS (grade 3+) group (24%).

In addition, all EEGs detecting seizure or status epilepticus resulted in an increase in antiepileptic prophylaxis with levetiracetam or the introduction of a new antiepileptics, mainly phenytoin.

Surprisingly, there were no cases of diffuse edema in the entire cohort, even among those with grade 4 ICANS, which is one of the key concerns of treating physicians managing severe ICANS, the authors noted.

A notable caveat is that EEG can be a time- and physician-consuming examination not easily accessed on a 24/7 daily practice level.

With such challenges, “[we] advocate for a close partnership between hematologists and electrophysiologists to make EEG access as easy as possible for this kind of patient, as EEG is a key game changer in patient course,” Mr. Mauget said.

Commenting on the findings, Marcela V. Maus, MD, PhD, director of the Cellular Immunotherapy Program at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, agreed that the study adds importantly to a topic in need of more data.

“This is a very interesting study that starts to provide data behind the consensus recommendations that were initially made based purely on expert opinion and collective practices,” she said in an interview.

“I think [the EEG findings] are interesting, because EEG is often the most non-specific of these tests, and I would not have predicted this result. I also think that monitoring of cerebral spinal fluid [through lumbar puncture] could have potentially higher impact if there was a way to routinely quantify and detect the CAR-T cells,” Dr. Maus said.

“Although admittedly I think this may be of greater benefit when patients present with neurologic findings outside the typical window of ICANS, such as what can occur with delayed neurologic toxicities such as Parkinsonism after BCMA-directed CAR T cells,” she added.

Senior author Guillaume Manson, MD, a hematologist also with the University Hospital of Rennes, underscored that the results shouldn’t be construed to suggest that MRI or LP should not be used in such cases, but may often not be necessary.

“Every patient’s case is different, and these findings certainly do not say that certain tests should or should not be performed,” he said in a press statement.

“We did this research to generate clinical evidence to inform guidelines that support physicians in making clinical decisions when treating patients with these complex, and sometimes severe conditions,” he added.

Dr. Manson reported relationships with BMS-Celgene, Gilead-Kite, and Takeda. Dr. Maus disclosed ties with Century Therapeutics, TCR2, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and several other companies in the field of cellular therapies.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

Nicholas J. Silvestri, MD: Hi there. My name is Dr Nick Silvestri, and I'm at the University of Buffalo. Today, I'd like to answer a few questions that I commonly receive from colleagues about the treatment of myasthenia gravis. As you know, over the past several years, we've had many new treatments approved to treat myasthenia gravis. One of the common questions that I get is, how do these new treatments fit into my treatment paradigm? 

First and foremost, I'd like to say that we've been very successful at treating myasthenia gravis for many years. The mainstay of therapy has typically been acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal immunosuppressants. These medicines by and large have helped control the disease in many, but maybe not all, patients. 

The good news about these treatments is they're very efficacious, and as I said, they are able to treat most patients with myasthenia gravis. But the bad news on these medications is that they can have some serious short- and long-term consequences. So as I think about the treatment paradigm right now in 2024 and treating patients with myasthenia gravis, I typically start with prednisone or corticosteroids and transition patients onto an oral immunosuppressant. 

But because it takes about a year for those oral immunosuppressants to become effective, I'm typically using steroids as a bridge. The goal, really, is to have patients on an oral immunosuppressant alone at the 1-year mark or thereabouts so that we don't have patients on steroids. 

When it comes to the new therapies, one of the things that I'm doing is I'm using them, if a patient does not respond to an oral immunosuppressant or in situations where patients have medical comorbidities that make me not want to use steroids or use steroids at high doses. 

Specifically, FcRn antagonists are often used as next-line therapy after an oral immunosuppressant fails or if I don't feel comfortable using prednisone at the outset and possibly bringing the patient to the oral immunosuppressant. The rationale behind this is that these medications are effective. They've been shown to be effective in clinical trials. They work fairly quickly, usually within 2-4 weeks. They're convenient for patients. And they have a pretty good safety profile. 

The major side effects with the FcRn antagonists tend to be an increased risk for infection, which is true for most medications used to treat myasthenia gravis. One is associated with headache. And they can be associated with joint pains and infusion issues as well. But by and large, they are well tolerated. So again, if a patient is not responding to an oral immunosuppressant or it has toxicity or side effects, or I'm leery of using prednisone, I'll typically use an FcRn antagonist. 

The other main class of medications is complement inhibitors. There are three complement inhibitors approved to use in the United States. Complement inhibitors are also very effective medications. I've used them with success in a number of patients, and I think that the paradigm is shifting. 

I've used complement inhibitors, as with the FcRn antagonists, in patients who aren't responding to the first line of therapy or if they have toxicity. I've also used complement inhibitors in instances where patients have not responded very robustly to FcRn antagonists, which thankfully is the minority of patients, but it's worth noting. 

I view the treatment paradigm for 2024 as oral immunosuppressant first, then FcRn antagonist next, and then complement inhibitor next. But to be truthful, we don't have head-to-head comparisons right now. What works for one patient may not work for another. In myasthenia gravis, it would be great to have biomarkers that allow us to predict who would respond to what form of therapy better. 

In other words, it would be great to be able to send off a test to know whether a patient would respond to an oral immunosuppressant better than perhaps to one of the newer therapies, or whether a patient would respond to an FcRn antagonist better than a complement inhibitor or vice versa. That's really one of the gold standards or holy grails in the treatment of myasthenia gravis. 

Another thing that comes up in relation to the first question has to do with, what patient characteristics do I keep in mind when selecting therapies? There's a couple of things. I think that first and foremost, many of our patients with myasthenia gravis are women of childbearing age. So we want to be mindful that many pregnancies are not planned, and be careful when we're choosing therapies that might have a role or might be deleterious to fetuses. 

This is particularly true with oral immunosuppressants, many of which are contraindicated in pregnancy. But medical comorbidities in general are helpful to understand. Again, using the corticosteroid example, in patients with high blood pressure, diabetes, or osteoporosis, I'm very leery about corticosteroids and may use one of the newer therapies earlier on. 

Another aspect is patient preference. We have oral therapies, we have intravenous therapies, we now have subcutaneous therapies. Route of administration is very important to consider as well, not only for patient comfort — some patients may prefer intravenous routes of administration vs subcutaneous — but also for patient convenience. 

Many of our patients with myasthenia gravis have very busy lives, with full-time jobs and other responsibilities, such as parenting or taking care of parents that are maybe older in age. So I think that tolerability and convenience are very important to getting patients the therapies they need and allowing patients the flexibility and convenience to be able to live their lives as well. 

I hope this was helpful to you. I look forward to speaking with you again at some point in the very near future. Stay well. 

Nicholas J. Silvestri, MD: Hi there. My name is Dr Nick Silvestri, and I'm at the University of Buffalo. Today, I'd like to answer a few questions that I commonly receive from colleagues about the treatment of myasthenia gravis. As you know, over the past several years, we've had many new treatments approved to treat myasthenia gravis. One of the common questions that I get is, how do these new treatments fit into my treatment paradigm? 

First and foremost, I'd like to say that we've been very successful at treating myasthenia gravis for many years. The mainstay of therapy has typically been acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal immunosuppressants. These medicines by and large have helped control the disease in many, but maybe not all, patients. 

The good news about these treatments is they're very efficacious, and as I said, they are able to treat most patients with myasthenia gravis. But the bad news on these medications is that they can have some serious short- and long-term consequences. So as I think about the treatment paradigm right now in 2024 and treating patients with myasthenia gravis, I typically start with prednisone or corticosteroids and transition patients onto an oral immunosuppressant. 

But because it takes about a year for those oral immunosuppressants to become effective, I'm typically using steroids as a bridge. The goal, really, is to have patients on an oral immunosuppressant alone at the 1-year mark or thereabouts so that we don't have patients on steroids. 

When it comes to the new therapies, one of the things that I'm doing is I'm using them, if a patient does not respond to an oral immunosuppressant or in situations where patients have medical comorbidities that make me not want to use steroids or use steroids at high doses. 

Specifically, FcRn antagonists are often used as next-line therapy after an oral immunosuppressant fails or if I don't feel comfortable using prednisone at the outset and possibly bringing the patient to the oral immunosuppressant. The rationale behind this is that these medications are effective. They've been shown to be effective in clinical trials. They work fairly quickly, usually within 2-4 weeks. They're convenient for patients. And they have a pretty good safety profile. 

The major side effects with the FcRn antagonists tend to be an increased risk for infection, which is true for most medications used to treat myasthenia gravis. One is associated with headache. And they can be associated with joint pains and infusion issues as well. But by and large, they are well tolerated. So again, if a patient is not responding to an oral immunosuppressant or it has toxicity or side effects, or I'm leery of using prednisone, I'll typically use an FcRn antagonist. 

The other main class of medications is complement inhibitors. There are three complement inhibitors approved to use in the United States. Complement inhibitors are also very effective medications. I've used them with success in a number of patients, and I think that the paradigm is shifting. 

I've used complement inhibitors, as with the FcRn antagonists, in patients who aren't responding to the first line of therapy or if they have toxicity. I've also used complement inhibitors in instances where patients have not responded very robustly to FcRn antagonists, which thankfully is the minority of patients, but it's worth noting. 

I view the treatment paradigm for 2024 as oral immunosuppressant first, then FcRn antagonist next, and then complement inhibitor next. But to be truthful, we don't have head-to-head comparisons right now. What works for one patient may not work for another. In myasthenia gravis, it would be great to have biomarkers that allow us to predict who would respond to what form of therapy better. 

In other words, it would be great to be able to send off a test to know whether a patient would respond to an oral immunosuppressant better than perhaps to one of the newer therapies, or whether a patient would respond to an FcRn antagonist better than a complement inhibitor or vice versa. That's really one of the gold standards or holy grails in the treatment of myasthenia gravis. 

Another thing that comes up in relation to the first question has to do with, what patient characteristics do I keep in mind when selecting therapies? There's a couple of things. I think that first and foremost, many of our patients with myasthenia gravis are women of childbearing age. So we want to be mindful that many pregnancies are not planned, and be careful when we're choosing therapies that might have a role or might be deleterious to fetuses. 

This is particularly true with oral immunosuppressants, many of which are contraindicated in pregnancy. But medical comorbidities in general are helpful to understand. Again, using the corticosteroid example, in patients with high blood pressure, diabetes, or osteoporosis, I'm very leery about corticosteroids and may use one of the newer therapies earlier on. 

Another aspect is patient preference. We have oral therapies, we have intravenous therapies, we now have subcutaneous therapies. Route of administration is very important to consider as well, not only for patient comfort — some patients may prefer intravenous routes of administration vs subcutaneous — but also for patient convenience. 

Many of our patients with myasthenia gravis have very busy lives, with full-time jobs and other responsibilities, such as parenting or taking care of parents that are maybe older in age. So I think that tolerability and convenience are very important to getting patients the therapies they need and allowing patients the flexibility and convenience to be able to live their lives as well. 

I hope this was helpful to you. I look forward to speaking with you again at some point in the very near future. Stay well. 

Nicholas J. Silvestri, MD: Hi there. My name is Dr Nick Silvestri, and I'm at the University of Buffalo. Today, I'd like to answer a few questions that I commonly receive from colleagues about the treatment of myasthenia gravis. As you know, over the past several years, we've had many new treatments approved to treat myasthenia gravis. One of the common questions that I get is, how do these new treatments fit into my treatment paradigm? 

First and foremost, I'd like to say that we've been very successful at treating myasthenia gravis for many years. The mainstay of therapy has typically been acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal immunosuppressants. These medicines by and large have helped control the disease in many, but maybe not all, patients. 

The good news about these treatments is they're very efficacious, and as I said, they are able to treat most patients with myasthenia gravis. But the bad news on these medications is that they can have some serious short- and long-term consequences. So as I think about the treatment paradigm right now in 2024 and treating patients with myasthenia gravis, I typically start with prednisone or corticosteroids and transition patients onto an oral immunosuppressant. 

But because it takes about a year for those oral immunosuppressants to become effective, I'm typically using steroids as a bridge. The goal, really, is to have patients on an oral immunosuppressant alone at the 1-year mark or thereabouts so that we don't have patients on steroids. 

When it comes to the new therapies, one of the things that I'm doing is I'm using them, if a patient does not respond to an oral immunosuppressant or in situations where patients have medical comorbidities that make me not want to use steroids or use steroids at high doses. 

Specifically, FcRn antagonists are often used as next-line therapy after an oral immunosuppressant fails or if I don't feel comfortable using prednisone at the outset and possibly bringing the patient to the oral immunosuppressant. The rationale behind this is that these medications are effective. They've been shown to be effective in clinical trials. They work fairly quickly, usually within 2-4 weeks. They're convenient for patients. And they have a pretty good safety profile. 

The major side effects with the FcRn antagonists tend to be an increased risk for infection, which is true for most medications used to treat myasthenia gravis. One is associated with headache. And they can be associated with joint pains and infusion issues as well. But by and large, they are well tolerated. So again, if a patient is not responding to an oral immunosuppressant or it has toxicity or side effects, or I'm leery of using prednisone, I'll typically use an FcRn antagonist. 

The other main class of medications is complement inhibitors. There are three complement inhibitors approved to use in the United States. Complement inhibitors are also very effective medications. I've used them with success in a number of patients, and I think that the paradigm is shifting. 

I've used complement inhibitors, as with the FcRn antagonists, in patients who aren't responding to the first line of therapy or if they have toxicity. I've also used complement inhibitors in instances where patients have not responded very robustly to FcRn antagonists, which thankfully is the minority of patients, but it's worth noting. 

I view the treatment paradigm for 2024 as oral immunosuppressant first, then FcRn antagonist next, and then complement inhibitor next. But to be truthful, we don't have head-to-head comparisons right now. What works for one patient may not work for another. In myasthenia gravis, it would be great to have biomarkers that allow us to predict who would respond to what form of therapy better. 

In other words, it would be great to be able to send off a test to know whether a patient would respond to an oral immunosuppressant better than perhaps to one of the newer therapies, or whether a patient would respond to an FcRn antagonist better than a complement inhibitor or vice versa. That's really one of the gold standards or holy grails in the treatment of myasthenia gravis. 

Another thing that comes up in relation to the first question has to do with, what patient characteristics do I keep in mind when selecting therapies? There's a couple of things. I think that first and foremost, many of our patients with myasthenia gravis are women of childbearing age. So we want to be mindful that many pregnancies are not planned, and be careful when we're choosing therapies that might have a role or might be deleterious to fetuses. 

This is particularly true with oral immunosuppressants, many of which are contraindicated in pregnancy. But medical comorbidities in general are helpful to understand. Again, using the corticosteroid example, in patients with high blood pressure, diabetes, or osteoporosis, I'm very leery about corticosteroids and may use one of the newer therapies earlier on. 

Another aspect is patient preference. We have oral therapies, we have intravenous therapies, we now have subcutaneous therapies. Route of administration is very important to consider as well, not only for patient comfort — some patients may prefer intravenous routes of administration vs subcutaneous — but also for patient convenience. 

Many of our patients with myasthenia gravis have very busy lives, with full-time jobs and other responsibilities, such as parenting or taking care of parents that are maybe older in age. So I think that tolerability and convenience are very important to getting patients the therapies they need and allowing patients the flexibility and convenience to be able to live their lives as well. 

I hope this was helpful to you. I look forward to speaking with you again at some point in the very near future. Stay well. 

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Naturally occurring glucose fluctuations affect cognitive function in people with type 1 diabetes, according to a new study. It matters less whether glucose is considerably higher or lower than the patient’s usual glucose level. Rather, cognition is slower when the glucose was atypical for that particular individual, with variations between different individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) digital sensors and smartphone-based cognitive tests (cognitive ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) to collect repeated, high-frequency glucose and cognitive data. Glucose data were collected every 5 minutes; cognitive data were collected three times daily for 15 days as participants went about their daily lives.
• The study included 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 47.5 [15.6] years; 53.5% female; 86% White; mean A1c, 7.5 mmol/mol [1.3]).
• Using CGM and EMA, the researchers obtained “intensive” longitudinal measurements of glucose as well as cognition (processing speed and sustained attention).
• Hierarchical Bayesian modeling estimated dynamic, within-person associations between glucose and cognition, and data-driven lasso regression identified identify clinical characteristics that predicted differences from person to person in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cognitive performance was reduced both at low and high glucose levels, “reflecting vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.”
• Large glucose fluctuations were associated with slower as well as less accurate processing speed, although slight glucose elevations (relative to the individual’s own means) were associated with faster processing speed, regardless of the absolute level (eg, euglycemic vs hyperglycemic) of those means.
• By contrast, glucose fluctuations were unrelated to sustained attention.
• The researchers identified seven clinical characteristics that predicted individual differences in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations: Older age, time in hypoglycemia, lifetime severe hypoglycemic events, microvascular complications, glucose variability, fatigue, and larger neck circumference.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate that people can differ a lot from one another in how their brains are impacted by glucose,” co-senior author Laura Germine, PhD, director of the Laboratory for Brain and Cognitive Health Technology, McLean Hospital, Boston, said in a news release. “We found that minimizing glucose fluctuations in daily life is important for optimizing processing speed, and this is especially true for people who are older or have other diabetes-related health conditions.”

SOURCE:

Zoë Hawks, PhD, research investigator, McLean Hospital, Boston, was the lead and corresponding author on the study. It was published online on March 18 in Digital Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers required 24-hour access to a smartphone with reliable Internet access, which might have biased sampling toward people of higher economic status. Moreover, the present sample was predominantly White and non-Hispanic, so findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Hawks received consulting fees from Blueprint Health. The other authors’ disclosures were listed in the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Naturally occurring glucose fluctuations affect cognitive function in people with type 1 diabetes, according to a new study. It matters less whether glucose is considerably higher or lower than the patient’s usual glucose level. Rather, cognition is slower when the glucose was atypical for that particular individual, with variations between different individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) digital sensors and smartphone-based cognitive tests (cognitive ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) to collect repeated, high-frequency glucose and cognitive data. Glucose data were collected every 5 minutes; cognitive data were collected three times daily for 15 days as participants went about their daily lives.
• The study included 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 47.5 [15.6] years; 53.5% female; 86% White; mean A1c, 7.5 mmol/mol [1.3]).
• Using CGM and EMA, the researchers obtained “intensive” longitudinal measurements of glucose as well as cognition (processing speed and sustained attention).
• Hierarchical Bayesian modeling estimated dynamic, within-person associations between glucose and cognition, and data-driven lasso regression identified identify clinical characteristics that predicted differences from person to person in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cognitive performance was reduced both at low and high glucose levels, “reflecting vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.”
• Large glucose fluctuations were associated with slower as well as less accurate processing speed, although slight glucose elevations (relative to the individual’s own means) were associated with faster processing speed, regardless of the absolute level (eg, euglycemic vs hyperglycemic) of those means.
• By contrast, glucose fluctuations were unrelated to sustained attention.
• The researchers identified seven clinical characteristics that predicted individual differences in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations: Older age, time in hypoglycemia, lifetime severe hypoglycemic events, microvascular complications, glucose variability, fatigue, and larger neck circumference.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate that people can differ a lot from one another in how their brains are impacted by glucose,” co-senior author Laura Germine, PhD, director of the Laboratory for Brain and Cognitive Health Technology, McLean Hospital, Boston, said in a news release. “We found that minimizing glucose fluctuations in daily life is important for optimizing processing speed, and this is especially true for people who are older or have other diabetes-related health conditions.”

SOURCE:

Zoë Hawks, PhD, research investigator, McLean Hospital, Boston, was the lead and corresponding author on the study. It was published online on March 18 in Digital Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers required 24-hour access to a smartphone with reliable Internet access, which might have biased sampling toward people of higher economic status. Moreover, the present sample was predominantly White and non-Hispanic, so findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Hawks received consulting fees from Blueprint Health. The other authors’ disclosures were listed in the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Naturally occurring glucose fluctuations affect cognitive function in people with type 1 diabetes, according to a new study. It matters less whether glucose is considerably higher or lower than the patient’s usual glucose level. Rather, cognition is slower when the glucose was atypical for that particular individual, with variations between different individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) digital sensors and smartphone-based cognitive tests (cognitive ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) to collect repeated, high-frequency glucose and cognitive data. Glucose data were collected every 5 minutes; cognitive data were collected three times daily for 15 days as participants went about their daily lives.
• The study included 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 47.5 [15.6] years; 53.5% female; 86% White; mean A1c, 7.5 mmol/mol [1.3]).
• Using CGM and EMA, the researchers obtained “intensive” longitudinal measurements of glucose as well as cognition (processing speed and sustained attention).
• Hierarchical Bayesian modeling estimated dynamic, within-person associations between glucose and cognition, and data-driven lasso regression identified identify clinical characteristics that predicted differences from person to person in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cognitive performance was reduced both at low and high glucose levels, “reflecting vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.”
• Large glucose fluctuations were associated with slower as well as less accurate processing speed, although slight glucose elevations (relative to the individual’s own means) were associated with faster processing speed, regardless of the absolute level (eg, euglycemic vs hyperglycemic) of those means.
• By contrast, glucose fluctuations were unrelated to sustained attention.
• The researchers identified seven clinical characteristics that predicted individual differences in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations: Older age, time in hypoglycemia, lifetime severe hypoglycemic events, microvascular complications, glucose variability, fatigue, and larger neck circumference.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate that people can differ a lot from one another in how their brains are impacted by glucose,” co-senior author Laura Germine, PhD, director of the Laboratory for Brain and Cognitive Health Technology, McLean Hospital, Boston, said in a news release. “We found that minimizing glucose fluctuations in daily life is important for optimizing processing speed, and this is especially true for people who are older or have other diabetes-related health conditions.”

SOURCE:

Zoë Hawks, PhD, research investigator, McLean Hospital, Boston, was the lead and corresponding author on the study. It was published online on March 18 in Digital Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers required 24-hour access to a smartphone with reliable Internet access, which might have biased sampling toward people of higher economic status. Moreover, the present sample was predominantly White and non-Hispanic, so findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Hawks received consulting fees from Blueprint Health. The other authors’ disclosures were listed in the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognitive and memory problems, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues versus their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” said study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, Department of Neurology, Boston Medical Center.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase said.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in its latest statement on the topic, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognitive and memory problems, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues versus their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” said study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, Department of Neurology, Boston Medical Center.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase said.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in its latest statement on the topic, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognitive and memory problems, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues versus their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” said study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, Department of Neurology, Boston Medical Center.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase said.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in its latest statement on the topic, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.