High-cost hospital stays among elderly patients with cancer are associated with major procedures, more comorbid conditions, hematologic cancer, and metastatic cancer, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 570,000 inpatient visits.

Patients involved in the top 10% most expensive cancer-related hospital visits were more likely to have five or more comorbidities, or receive chemotherapy, reported lead author Jaqueline Avila, PhD candidate at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, and her colleagues.

“A small fraction (approximately 10%) of patients account for more than half of the overall health care costs incurred annually,” the investigators wrote. The report is in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“[S]imilar to the general population, a small population of patients with cancer (the top 5% to 10% of patients with highest costs) accounts for more than 80% of the total cancer costs,” the investigators wrote. “However, we lack a detailed understanding of the characteristics of these high-cost and high-risk elderly patients with cancer.”

To gain insight, the investigators analyzed 574,367 cancer-related inpatient visits of patients aged 65 years or older, using data from the 2014 National Inpatient Sample. Visits were divided based on cost, with the top 10% most expensive visits in one group (n = 57,437) and the lower 90% of visits in another group (n = 516,930). The investigators then compared these groups based on a variety of patient factor covariates, including race, sex, age, type of cancer, comorbidities, treatments received, and hospital characteristics, such as private or public ownership and location.

The overall median cost of the top 10% of inpatient visits was $38,194 (interquartile range, $31,405-$51,802), compared with $8,257 in the lower-cost group (interquartile range, $5,032-$13,335). This was partly attributed to comorbidities. In the high-cost group, 38.4% of patients had five or more comorbidities, compared with 26.2% in the lower-cost group (P less than .001).

Procedures also factored into cost. The high-cost group had more procedures than did the lower-cost group (mean, 5.48 vs. 2.36; P less than .001), and expensive stays more often entailed major procedures (67.1% vs. 24.3%; P less than .001). Hematologic cancer and metastatic cancer were also more common in the high-cost group than in the lower-cost group, with rates of 23.5% versus 14.6% and 16.5% versus 11.8%, respectively. Among all cancer types, lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma were the most expensive. The investigators noted that 97.9% of stem-cell or bone marrow transplants were received by patients with hematologic cancer.

Cost did not increase directly with age, as patients aged 65-84 years were more likely to have high-cost inpatient visits than were those who were aged 85 years or older.

The investigators suggested that complications of chronic diseases were likely at the root of this difference, particularly among patients in the 65- to 72-year range. “The difference in costs could also be because caregivers and clinicians may choose to provide only necessary and often less intensive procedures and care to the oldest patients,” the investigators wrote.

A variety of other factors were associated with high-cost visits, although to a lesser degree, including male sex, treatment at a metropolitan teaching hospital, higher median household income, radiation therapy, and large bed size.

The investigators stated that more research is needed to determine relationships between costs and medical necessity, and to develop strategies for reducing costs.

“Although we evaluated the drivers of hospital costs, we could not assess whether additional costs incurred by the high-cost group were medically necessary or could be prevented or whether these excess costs resulted in better outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Additional research is needed to measure outcomes such as survival and quality of life in this high-cost group and also evaluate whether the excess cost is spent on medically necessary services.

“Future studies should address how implementation of models such as the integrative care model and hospice care may affect the distribution of high-cost and low-cost visits,” the investigators suggested.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Chavez-MacGregor reported financial relationships with Pfizer and Genentech.

SOURCE: Avila et al. JOP. 2019 Apr 4. doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00706.

High-cost hospital stays among elderly patients with cancer are associated with major procedures, more comorbid conditions, hematologic cancer, and metastatic cancer, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 570,000 inpatient visits.

Patients involved in the top 10% most expensive cancer-related hospital visits were more likely to have five or more comorbidities, or receive chemotherapy, reported lead author Jaqueline Avila, PhD candidate at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, and her colleagues.

“A small fraction (approximately 10%) of patients account for more than half of the overall health care costs incurred annually,” the investigators wrote. The report is in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“[S]imilar to the general population, a small population of patients with cancer (the top 5% to 10% of patients with highest costs) accounts for more than 80% of the total cancer costs,” the investigators wrote. “However, we lack a detailed understanding of the characteristics of these high-cost and high-risk elderly patients with cancer.”

To gain insight, the investigators analyzed 574,367 cancer-related inpatient visits of patients aged 65 years or older, using data from the 2014 National Inpatient Sample. Visits were divided based on cost, with the top 10% most expensive visits in one group (n = 57,437) and the lower 90% of visits in another group (n = 516,930). The investigators then compared these groups based on a variety of patient factor covariates, including race, sex, age, type of cancer, comorbidities, treatments received, and hospital characteristics, such as private or public ownership and location.

The overall median cost of the top 10% of inpatient visits was $38,194 (interquartile range, $31,405-$51,802), compared with $8,257 in the lower-cost group (interquartile range, $5,032-$13,335). This was partly attributed to comorbidities. In the high-cost group, 38.4% of patients had five or more comorbidities, compared with 26.2% in the lower-cost group (P less than .001).

Procedures also factored into cost. The high-cost group had more procedures than did the lower-cost group (mean, 5.48 vs. 2.36; P less than .001), and expensive stays more often entailed major procedures (67.1% vs. 24.3%; P less than .001). Hematologic cancer and metastatic cancer were also more common in the high-cost group than in the lower-cost group, with rates of 23.5% versus 14.6% and 16.5% versus 11.8%, respectively. Among all cancer types, lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma were the most expensive. The investigators noted that 97.9% of stem-cell or bone marrow transplants were received by patients with hematologic cancer.

Cost did not increase directly with age, as patients aged 65-84 years were more likely to have high-cost inpatient visits than were those who were aged 85 years or older.

The investigators suggested that complications of chronic diseases were likely at the root of this difference, particularly among patients in the 65- to 72-year range. “The difference in costs could also be because caregivers and clinicians may choose to provide only necessary and often less intensive procedures and care to the oldest patients,” the investigators wrote.

A variety of other factors were associated with high-cost visits, although to a lesser degree, including male sex, treatment at a metropolitan teaching hospital, higher median household income, radiation therapy, and large bed size.

The investigators stated that more research is needed to determine relationships between costs and medical necessity, and to develop strategies for reducing costs.

“Although we evaluated the drivers of hospital costs, we could not assess whether additional costs incurred by the high-cost group were medically necessary or could be prevented or whether these excess costs resulted in better outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Additional research is needed to measure outcomes such as survival and quality of life in this high-cost group and also evaluate whether the excess cost is spent on medically necessary services.

“Future studies should address how implementation of models such as the integrative care model and hospice care may affect the distribution of high-cost and low-cost visits,” the investigators suggested.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Chavez-MacGregor reported financial relationships with Pfizer and Genentech.

SOURCE: Avila et al. JOP. 2019 Apr 4. doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00706.

High-cost hospital stays among elderly patients with cancer are associated with major procedures, more comorbid conditions, hematologic cancer, and metastatic cancer, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 570,000 inpatient visits.

Patients involved in the top 10% most expensive cancer-related hospital visits were more likely to have five or more comorbidities, or receive chemotherapy, reported lead author Jaqueline Avila, PhD candidate at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, and her colleagues.

“A small fraction (approximately 10%) of patients account for more than half of the overall health care costs incurred annually,” the investigators wrote. The report is in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“[S]imilar to the general population, a small population of patients with cancer (the top 5% to 10% of patients with highest costs) accounts for more than 80% of the total cancer costs,” the investigators wrote. “However, we lack a detailed understanding of the characteristics of these high-cost and high-risk elderly patients with cancer.”

To gain insight, the investigators analyzed 574,367 cancer-related inpatient visits of patients aged 65 years or older, using data from the 2014 National Inpatient Sample. Visits were divided based on cost, with the top 10% most expensive visits in one group (n = 57,437) and the lower 90% of visits in another group (n = 516,930). The investigators then compared these groups based on a variety of patient factor covariates, including race, sex, age, type of cancer, comorbidities, treatments received, and hospital characteristics, such as private or public ownership and location.

The overall median cost of the top 10% of inpatient visits was $38,194 (interquartile range, $31,405-$51,802), compared with $8,257 in the lower-cost group (interquartile range, $5,032-$13,335). This was partly attributed to comorbidities. In the high-cost group, 38.4% of patients had five or more comorbidities, compared with 26.2% in the lower-cost group (P less than .001).

Procedures also factored into cost. The high-cost group had more procedures than did the lower-cost group (mean, 5.48 vs. 2.36; P less than .001), and expensive stays more often entailed major procedures (67.1% vs. 24.3%; P less than .001). Hematologic cancer and metastatic cancer were also more common in the high-cost group than in the lower-cost group, with rates of 23.5% versus 14.6% and 16.5% versus 11.8%, respectively. Among all cancer types, lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma were the most expensive. The investigators noted that 97.9% of stem-cell or bone marrow transplants were received by patients with hematologic cancer.

Cost did not increase directly with age, as patients aged 65-84 years were more likely to have high-cost inpatient visits than were those who were aged 85 years or older.

The investigators suggested that complications of chronic diseases were likely at the root of this difference, particularly among patients in the 65- to 72-year range. “The difference in costs could also be because caregivers and clinicians may choose to provide only necessary and often less intensive procedures and care to the oldest patients,” the investigators wrote.

A variety of other factors were associated with high-cost visits, although to a lesser degree, including male sex, treatment at a metropolitan teaching hospital, higher median household income, radiation therapy, and large bed size.

The investigators stated that more research is needed to determine relationships between costs and medical necessity, and to develop strategies for reducing costs.

“Although we evaluated the drivers of hospital costs, we could not assess whether additional costs incurred by the high-cost group were medically necessary or could be prevented or whether these excess costs resulted in better outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Additional research is needed to measure outcomes such as survival and quality of life in this high-cost group and also evaluate whether the excess cost is spent on medically necessary services.

“Future studies should address how implementation of models such as the integrative care model and hospice care may affect the distribution of high-cost and low-cost visits,” the investigators suggested.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Chavez-MacGregor reported financial relationships with Pfizer and Genentech.

SOURCE: Avila et al. JOP. 2019 Apr 4. doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00706.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication of palbociclib (Ibrance) in combination with specific endocrine therapies for hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in men.

Approval was based on postmarketing reports and electronic health records showing that the safety profile for men is consistent with that of women, the FDA said in a statement.

Less than 1% of all cases of breast cancer occur in men, but in the majority of those cases the tumors do express hormone receptors. Men are more likely to be diagnosed at a more advanced stage of disease. “According to the current clinical practice standards, male patients with breast cancer are treated similarly to women with breast cancer,” the FDA said.

The kinase inhibitor palbociclib was initially approved in 2015, in combination with an aromatase inhibitor, for postmenopausal women as first-line treatment of advanced disease.

The most common side effects in patients taking palbociclib are infections, leukopenia, fatigue, nausea, stomatitis, anemia, hair loss, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia.

Because of the potential for genotoxicity, the FDA advised health care providers to tell male patients with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with palbociclib and for 3 months after the last dose.

 

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication of palbociclib (Ibrance) in combination with specific endocrine therapies for hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in men.

Approval was based on postmarketing reports and electronic health records showing that the safety profile for men is consistent with that of women, the FDA said in a statement.

Less than 1% of all cases of breast cancer occur in men, but in the majority of those cases the tumors do express hormone receptors. Men are more likely to be diagnosed at a more advanced stage of disease. “According to the current clinical practice standards, male patients with breast cancer are treated similarly to women with breast cancer,” the FDA said.

The kinase inhibitor palbociclib was initially approved in 2015, in combination with an aromatase inhibitor, for postmenopausal women as first-line treatment of advanced disease.

The most common side effects in patients taking palbociclib are infections, leukopenia, fatigue, nausea, stomatitis, anemia, hair loss, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia.

Because of the potential for genotoxicity, the FDA advised health care providers to tell male patients with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with palbociclib and for 3 months after the last dose.

 

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication of palbociclib (Ibrance) in combination with specific endocrine therapies for hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in men.

Approval was based on postmarketing reports and electronic health records showing that the safety profile for men is consistent with that of women, the FDA said in a statement.

Less than 1% of all cases of breast cancer occur in men, but in the majority of those cases the tumors do express hormone receptors. Men are more likely to be diagnosed at a more advanced stage of disease. “According to the current clinical practice standards, male patients with breast cancer are treated similarly to women with breast cancer,” the FDA said.

The kinase inhibitor palbociclib was initially approved in 2015, in combination with an aromatase inhibitor, for postmenopausal women as first-line treatment of advanced disease.

The most common side effects in patients taking palbociclib are infections, leukopenia, fatigue, nausea, stomatitis, anemia, hair loss, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia.

Because of the potential for genotoxicity, the FDA advised health care providers to tell male patients with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with palbociclib and for 3 months after the last dose.

 

Hospitalists pay attention to length of stay as a measure of hospital efficiency and resource utilization; outliers on that measure – “long stay patients” – who present complex discharges are a barrier to length of stay reduction. To address this challenge, one institution formed a multidisciplinary Long Stay Committee and described the results in an abstract.

The Long Stay Committee is composed of medical directors, the chief quality officer, directors in nursing, directors of case management/social work, hospitalists, risk management, finance, ethics, psychiatry, and directors of rehabilitation. The most complex patient discharges, identified by case management and social work, are brought to the Long Stay Committee.

“Lack of guardianship is one of the most encountered barriers,” according to the authors. “The Long Stay Committee played an integral part in our institution partnering with the local county to form a guardian service board which facilitates guardianship appointments. Other solutions have included working with the patient and support persons to find appropriate discharge levels of care throughout the United States and other countries as well as guiding them through the process to gain the necessary financial resources.”

The authors conclude that the foundation of the committee’s success in coming up with innovative discharge solutions is the broad range of disciplines that attend this committee and the atmosphere of teamwork it creates.

Reference

Heacock A et al. Long Stay Committee finds innovative discharge plans for difficult discharges. Hospital Medicine 2018, Abstract 312. .

Hospitalists pay attention to length of stay as a measure of hospital efficiency and resource utilization; outliers on that measure – “long stay patients” – who present complex discharges are a barrier to length of stay reduction. To address this challenge, one institution formed a multidisciplinary Long Stay Committee and described the results in an abstract.

The Long Stay Committee is composed of medical directors, the chief quality officer, directors in nursing, directors of case management/social work, hospitalists, risk management, finance, ethics, psychiatry, and directors of rehabilitation. The most complex patient discharges, identified by case management and social work, are brought to the Long Stay Committee.

“Lack of guardianship is one of the most encountered barriers,” according to the authors. “The Long Stay Committee played an integral part in our institution partnering with the local county to form a guardian service board which facilitates guardianship appointments. Other solutions have included working with the patient and support persons to find appropriate discharge levels of care throughout the United States and other countries as well as guiding them through the process to gain the necessary financial resources.”

The authors conclude that the foundation of the committee’s success in coming up with innovative discharge solutions is the broad range of disciplines that attend this committee and the atmosphere of teamwork it creates.

Reference

Heacock A et al. Long Stay Committee finds innovative discharge plans for difficult discharges. Hospital Medicine 2018, Abstract 312. .

Hospitalists pay attention to length of stay as a measure of hospital efficiency and resource utilization; outliers on that measure – “long stay patients” – who present complex discharges are a barrier to length of stay reduction. To address this challenge, one institution formed a multidisciplinary Long Stay Committee and described the results in an abstract.

The Long Stay Committee is composed of medical directors, the chief quality officer, directors in nursing, directors of case management/social work, hospitalists, risk management, finance, ethics, psychiatry, and directors of rehabilitation. The most complex patient discharges, identified by case management and social work, are brought to the Long Stay Committee.

“Lack of guardianship is one of the most encountered barriers,” according to the authors. “The Long Stay Committee played an integral part in our institution partnering with the local county to form a guardian service board which facilitates guardianship appointments. Other solutions have included working with the patient and support persons to find appropriate discharge levels of care throughout the United States and other countries as well as guiding them through the process to gain the necessary financial resources.”

The authors conclude that the foundation of the committee’s success in coming up with innovative discharge solutions is the broad range of disciplines that attend this committee and the atmosphere of teamwork it creates.

Reference

Heacock A et al. Long Stay Committee finds innovative discharge plans for difficult discharges. Hospital Medicine 2018, Abstract 312. .

Polyglutamine diseases are a group of hereditary neurodegenerative disorders caused by mutations in which a trinucleotide repeat expands pathologically on a disease-associated gene. The diseases are rare, with the most common among them – Huntington disease – affecting between 10 and 14 per 100,000 people in Western countries, where prevalence is highest.

In polyglutamine diseases, which include the spinocerebellar ataxias, dentatorubral-pallidoluysian atrophy, and spinal bulbar muscular atrophy, higher CAG (cytosine-adenine-guanine) repeat numbers are associated with greater disease severity, faster progression, or earlier age at onset.

In research published April 1 in JAMA Neurology, investigators report that more than one-tenth of the European population carries CAG expansions that fall short of the repeats needed to cause any of 9 polyglutamine diseases – but are enough to put them at risk of having children who develop one. A smaller number of people – about 1% – carry enough CAG repeats to cause one of the diseases late in life.

For their research, Sarah L. Gardiner, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University, and her colleagues looked at polyglutamine expansion variants for nine diseases in samples from 14,196 adults (56% of whom were women) from the Netherlands, Scotland, and Ireland. The samples were taken from five population-based cohort studies conducted between 1997 and 2012, and all subjects were without a history of polyglutamine disease or major depression.

Of these, 10.7% had a CAG repeat number on a disease-associated gene that was in the intermediate range, defined as a number of repeats that cannot cause disease but for which “expansion into the fully pathological range has been observed on intergenerational transmission,” Dr. Gardiner and her colleagues wrote. And some 1.3% of subjects were found to have CAG repeats within the disease-causing range, “mostly in the lower range associated with elderly onset.”

The investigators found no differences in sex, age, or body mass index between individuals with CAG repeat numbers within the pathological range and individuals with CAG repeat numbers within the normal or intermediate range.

Whether carriers of immediate or lower-range pathological CAG repeats went on to develop disease could not be measured, as follow-up data were not available. Another limitation of the study, the investigators acknowledged, was that the genotyping method used “did not allow us to determine the presence of trinucleotide interruptions,” which can affect disease penetrance.

“A late age at onset, a reduced penetrance, or the presence of interruptions could all explain the asymptomatic status of our carriers of intermediate and pathological polyglutamine disease–associated alleles at the time of assessment,” Dr. Gardiner and her colleagues wrote.

This study was funded by the European Union and Dutch government agencies; one of the population-based cohort studies from which the study sample was taken received some support from Bristol-Myers-Squibb. One of Dr. Gardiner’s coauthors, Raymund A. C. Roos, MD, PhD, disclosed being an adviser for UniQure, a gene-therapy firm, and no other conflicts of interest were reported.
 

SOURCE: Gardiner et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.001/jamaneurol.2019.042.

Polyglutamine diseases are a group of hereditary neurodegenerative disorders caused by mutations in which a trinucleotide repeat expands pathologically on a disease-associated gene. The diseases are rare, with the most common among them – Huntington disease – affecting between 10 and 14 per 100,000 people in Western countries, where prevalence is highest.

In polyglutamine diseases, which include the spinocerebellar ataxias, dentatorubral-pallidoluysian atrophy, and spinal bulbar muscular atrophy, higher CAG (cytosine-adenine-guanine) repeat numbers are associated with greater disease severity, faster progression, or earlier age at onset.

In research published April 1 in JAMA Neurology, investigators report that more than one-tenth of the European population carries CAG expansions that fall short of the repeats needed to cause any of 9 polyglutamine diseases – but are enough to put them at risk of having children who develop one. A smaller number of people – about 1% – carry enough CAG repeats to cause one of the diseases late in life.

For their research, Sarah L. Gardiner, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University, and her colleagues looked at polyglutamine expansion variants for nine diseases in samples from 14,196 adults (56% of whom were women) from the Netherlands, Scotland, and Ireland. The samples were taken from five population-based cohort studies conducted between 1997 and 2012, and all subjects were without a history of polyglutamine disease or major depression.

Of these, 10.7% had a CAG repeat number on a disease-associated gene that was in the intermediate range, defined as a number of repeats that cannot cause disease but for which “expansion into the fully pathological range has been observed on intergenerational transmission,” Dr. Gardiner and her colleagues wrote. And some 1.3% of subjects were found to have CAG repeats within the disease-causing range, “mostly in the lower range associated with elderly onset.”

The investigators found no differences in sex, age, or body mass index between individuals with CAG repeat numbers within the pathological range and individuals with CAG repeat numbers within the normal or intermediate range.

Whether carriers of immediate or lower-range pathological CAG repeats went on to develop disease could not be measured, as follow-up data were not available. Another limitation of the study, the investigators acknowledged, was that the genotyping method used “did not allow us to determine the presence of trinucleotide interruptions,” which can affect disease penetrance.

“A late age at onset, a reduced penetrance, or the presence of interruptions could all explain the asymptomatic status of our carriers of intermediate and pathological polyglutamine disease–associated alleles at the time of assessment,” Dr. Gardiner and her colleagues wrote.

This study was funded by the European Union and Dutch government agencies; one of the population-based cohort studies from which the study sample was taken received some support from Bristol-Myers-Squibb. One of Dr. Gardiner’s coauthors, Raymund A. C. Roos, MD, PhD, disclosed being an adviser for UniQure, a gene-therapy firm, and no other conflicts of interest were reported.
 

SOURCE: Gardiner et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.001/jamaneurol.2019.042.

Polyglutamine diseases are a group of hereditary neurodegenerative disorders caused by mutations in which a trinucleotide repeat expands pathologically on a disease-associated gene. The diseases are rare, with the most common among them – Huntington disease – affecting between 10 and 14 per 100,000 people in Western countries, where prevalence is highest.

In polyglutamine diseases, which include the spinocerebellar ataxias, dentatorubral-pallidoluysian atrophy, and spinal bulbar muscular atrophy, higher CAG (cytosine-adenine-guanine) repeat numbers are associated with greater disease severity, faster progression, or earlier age at onset.

In research published April 1 in JAMA Neurology, investigators report that more than one-tenth of the European population carries CAG expansions that fall short of the repeats needed to cause any of 9 polyglutamine diseases – but are enough to put them at risk of having children who develop one. A smaller number of people – about 1% – carry enough CAG repeats to cause one of the diseases late in life.

For their research, Sarah L. Gardiner, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University, and her colleagues looked at polyglutamine expansion variants for nine diseases in samples from 14,196 adults (56% of whom were women) from the Netherlands, Scotland, and Ireland. The samples were taken from five population-based cohort studies conducted between 1997 and 2012, and all subjects were without a history of polyglutamine disease or major depression.

Of these, 10.7% had a CAG repeat number on a disease-associated gene that was in the intermediate range, defined as a number of repeats that cannot cause disease but for which “expansion into the fully pathological range has been observed on intergenerational transmission,” Dr. Gardiner and her colleagues wrote. And some 1.3% of subjects were found to have CAG repeats within the disease-causing range, “mostly in the lower range associated with elderly onset.”

The investigators found no differences in sex, age, or body mass index between individuals with CAG repeat numbers within the pathological range and individuals with CAG repeat numbers within the normal or intermediate range.

Whether carriers of immediate or lower-range pathological CAG repeats went on to develop disease could not be measured, as follow-up data were not available. Another limitation of the study, the investigators acknowledged, was that the genotyping method used “did not allow us to determine the presence of trinucleotide interruptions,” which can affect disease penetrance.

“A late age at onset, a reduced penetrance, or the presence of interruptions could all explain the asymptomatic status of our carriers of intermediate and pathological polyglutamine disease–associated alleles at the time of assessment,” Dr. Gardiner and her colleagues wrote.

This study was funded by the European Union and Dutch government agencies; one of the population-based cohort studies from which the study sample was taken received some support from Bristol-Myers-Squibb. One of Dr. Gardiner’s coauthors, Raymund A. C. Roos, MD, PhD, disclosed being an adviser for UniQure, a gene-therapy firm, and no other conflicts of interest were reported.
 

SOURCE: Gardiner et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.001/jamaneurol.2019.042.

[polldaddy:10286067]

[polldaddy:10286067]

[polldaddy:10286067]

Glasgow – Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were treated with a combination of the oral protease inhibitor ixazomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in routine clinical practice had similar responses to clinical trial patients, according to a global observational study.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response (OR) rates closely approximated data from the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, reported lead author Gordon Cook, MB ChB, PhD, clinical director of hematology at the University of Leeds (England).

Tolerability appeared slightly higher in routine clinical practice, and in agreement with previous real-world studies for RRMM, patients who received IRd in earlier lines of therapy had better outcomes than did those who received IRd in later lines of therapy. “The translation of clinical trial data into the real world is really important because we practice in the real world,” Dr. Cook said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology. “We know that trials are really important for establishing efficacy and safety of drugs so they can get licensed and market access, but [clinical trials] often don’t tell us about the true effectiveness of the drugs and tolerability because the populations in trials are often different from [patients in] the real world.”

This situation leads to an evidence gap, which the present trial, dubbed INSIGHT MM aims to fill. INSIGHT is the largest global, prospective, observational trial for multiple myeloma conducted to date, with ongoing enrollment of about 4,200 patients from 15 countries with newly diagnosed or refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Dr. Cook estimated that recruitment would be complete by June of 2019.

“The aim of [INSIGHT MM] is to evaluate real-world treatment and outcomes [in multiple myeloma] over 5 years and beyond,” Dr. Cook said.

In combination with interim data from INSIGHT MM (n = 50), Dr. Cook reported patient outcomes from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (n = 113), a similar database. Unlike INSIGHT MM, which includes patients treated with between one and three prior lines of therapy, the Czech registry does not cap the number of prior therapies. Overall, in the data presented by Dr. Cook, nine countries were represented; about 90% of which were European, although approximately 10% of patients were treated in the United States and about 1% were treated in Taiwan.

The median age of diagnosis was 67 years, with about 14% of patients over the age of 75 years. Median time from diagnosis to initiation of IRd was about 3.5 years (42.6 months), at which point 71% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 1.

About two-thirds of the patients (65%) had IgG multiple myeloma, and 14% had extramedullary disease. The most common prior therapy was bortezomib (89%), followed by transplant (61%), thalidomide (42%), lenalidomide (21%), carfilzomib (11%), daratumumab (3%), and pomalidomide (2%).

Half of the patients received IRd as second-line therapy, while the other half received the treatment third-line (30%), or fourth-line or later (20%). Median duration of therapy was just over 1 year (14 months), with 62% of patients still receiving therapy at data cutoff.

Dr. Cook cautioned that with a median follow-up of 9.3 months, data are still immature. However, the results so far suggest strong similarities in tolerability and efficacy when comparing real-world and clinical trial administration of IRd.

Routine clinical use was associated with an overall response rate of 74%, compared with 78% in the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial. Again, showing high similarity, median PFS rates were 20.9 months and 20.6 months for the present data set and the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, respectively.

Just 4% of patients permanently discontinued ixazomib in the real-world study, compared with 17% in the clinical trial, suggesting that IRd may be better tolerated in routine clinical practice than the trial data indicated.

“IRd is effective in this setting,” Dr. Cook said. “Bear in mind that patients in the real-world database were further down the line in terms of the treatment pathway, they had prior heavier exposure to bortezomib and lenalidomide, and their performance status was slightly less impressive than it was in [TOURMALINE‑MM1]; therefore, to see this level of response in the real world is very pleasing.”

When asked by an attendee if clinical trials should push for inclusion of patients more representative of real-world populations, Dr. Cook said no. “I think the way we conduct phase 3 clinical trials, in particular, has to be the way it is in order for us to ensure that we can actually get the absolute efficacy and the safety, and that has to be done by a refined population, I’m afraid,” he said.

However, Dr. Cook supported efforts to improve reliability of data for clinicians at the time of drug licensing.

“We should be running real-world exposure in parallel with phase 3 studies, which is harder to do but just requires a bit of imagination,” Dr. Cook said.

The study was funded by Takeda. The investigators reported financial relationships with Takeda and other companies.

SOURCE: Cook G et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-018.

Glasgow – Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were treated with a combination of the oral protease inhibitor ixazomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in routine clinical practice had similar responses to clinical trial patients, according to a global observational study.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response (OR) rates closely approximated data from the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, reported lead author Gordon Cook, MB ChB, PhD, clinical director of hematology at the University of Leeds (England).

Tolerability appeared slightly higher in routine clinical practice, and in agreement with previous real-world studies for RRMM, patients who received IRd in earlier lines of therapy had better outcomes than did those who received IRd in later lines of therapy. “The translation of clinical trial data into the real world is really important because we practice in the real world,” Dr. Cook said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology. “We know that trials are really important for establishing efficacy and safety of drugs so they can get licensed and market access, but [clinical trials] often don’t tell us about the true effectiveness of the drugs and tolerability because the populations in trials are often different from [patients in] the real world.”

This situation leads to an evidence gap, which the present trial, dubbed INSIGHT MM aims to fill. INSIGHT is the largest global, prospective, observational trial for multiple myeloma conducted to date, with ongoing enrollment of about 4,200 patients from 15 countries with newly diagnosed or refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Dr. Cook estimated that recruitment would be complete by June of 2019.

“The aim of [INSIGHT MM] is to evaluate real-world treatment and outcomes [in multiple myeloma] over 5 years and beyond,” Dr. Cook said.

In combination with interim data from INSIGHT MM (n = 50), Dr. Cook reported patient outcomes from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (n = 113), a similar database. Unlike INSIGHT MM, which includes patients treated with between one and three prior lines of therapy, the Czech registry does not cap the number of prior therapies. Overall, in the data presented by Dr. Cook, nine countries were represented; about 90% of which were European, although approximately 10% of patients were treated in the United States and about 1% were treated in Taiwan.

The median age of diagnosis was 67 years, with about 14% of patients over the age of 75 years. Median time from diagnosis to initiation of IRd was about 3.5 years (42.6 months), at which point 71% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 1.

About two-thirds of the patients (65%) had IgG multiple myeloma, and 14% had extramedullary disease. The most common prior therapy was bortezomib (89%), followed by transplant (61%), thalidomide (42%), lenalidomide (21%), carfilzomib (11%), daratumumab (3%), and pomalidomide (2%).

Half of the patients received IRd as second-line therapy, while the other half received the treatment third-line (30%), or fourth-line or later (20%). Median duration of therapy was just over 1 year (14 months), with 62% of patients still receiving therapy at data cutoff.

Dr. Cook cautioned that with a median follow-up of 9.3 months, data are still immature. However, the results so far suggest strong similarities in tolerability and efficacy when comparing real-world and clinical trial administration of IRd.

Routine clinical use was associated with an overall response rate of 74%, compared with 78% in the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial. Again, showing high similarity, median PFS rates were 20.9 months and 20.6 months for the present data set and the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, respectively.

Just 4% of patients permanently discontinued ixazomib in the real-world study, compared with 17% in the clinical trial, suggesting that IRd may be better tolerated in routine clinical practice than the trial data indicated.

“IRd is effective in this setting,” Dr. Cook said. “Bear in mind that patients in the real-world database were further down the line in terms of the treatment pathway, they had prior heavier exposure to bortezomib and lenalidomide, and their performance status was slightly less impressive than it was in [TOURMALINE‑MM1]; therefore, to see this level of response in the real world is very pleasing.”

When asked by an attendee if clinical trials should push for inclusion of patients more representative of real-world populations, Dr. Cook said no. “I think the way we conduct phase 3 clinical trials, in particular, has to be the way it is in order for us to ensure that we can actually get the absolute efficacy and the safety, and that has to be done by a refined population, I’m afraid,” he said.

However, Dr. Cook supported efforts to improve reliability of data for clinicians at the time of drug licensing.

“We should be running real-world exposure in parallel with phase 3 studies, which is harder to do but just requires a bit of imagination,” Dr. Cook said.

The study was funded by Takeda. The investigators reported financial relationships with Takeda and other companies.

SOURCE: Cook G et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-018.

Glasgow – Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were treated with a combination of the oral protease inhibitor ixazomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in routine clinical practice had similar responses to clinical trial patients, according to a global observational study.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response (OR) rates closely approximated data from the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, reported lead author Gordon Cook, MB ChB, PhD, clinical director of hematology at the University of Leeds (England).

Tolerability appeared slightly higher in routine clinical practice, and in agreement with previous real-world studies for RRMM, patients who received IRd in earlier lines of therapy had better outcomes than did those who received IRd in later lines of therapy. “The translation of clinical trial data into the real world is really important because we practice in the real world,” Dr. Cook said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology. “We know that trials are really important for establishing efficacy and safety of drugs so they can get licensed and market access, but [clinical trials] often don’t tell us about the true effectiveness of the drugs and tolerability because the populations in trials are often different from [patients in] the real world.”

This situation leads to an evidence gap, which the present trial, dubbed INSIGHT MM aims to fill. INSIGHT is the largest global, prospective, observational trial for multiple myeloma conducted to date, with ongoing enrollment of about 4,200 patients from 15 countries with newly diagnosed or refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Dr. Cook estimated that recruitment would be complete by June of 2019.

“The aim of [INSIGHT MM] is to evaluate real-world treatment and outcomes [in multiple myeloma] over 5 years and beyond,” Dr. Cook said.

In combination with interim data from INSIGHT MM (n = 50), Dr. Cook reported patient outcomes from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (n = 113), a similar database. Unlike INSIGHT MM, which includes patients treated with between one and three prior lines of therapy, the Czech registry does not cap the number of prior therapies. Overall, in the data presented by Dr. Cook, nine countries were represented; about 90% of which were European, although approximately 10% of patients were treated in the United States and about 1% were treated in Taiwan.

The median age of diagnosis was 67 years, with about 14% of patients over the age of 75 years. Median time from diagnosis to initiation of IRd was about 3.5 years (42.6 months), at which point 71% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 1.

About two-thirds of the patients (65%) had IgG multiple myeloma, and 14% had extramedullary disease. The most common prior therapy was bortezomib (89%), followed by transplant (61%), thalidomide (42%), lenalidomide (21%), carfilzomib (11%), daratumumab (3%), and pomalidomide (2%).

Half of the patients received IRd as second-line therapy, while the other half received the treatment third-line (30%), or fourth-line or later (20%). Median duration of therapy was just over 1 year (14 months), with 62% of patients still receiving therapy at data cutoff.

Dr. Cook cautioned that with a median follow-up of 9.3 months, data are still immature. However, the results so far suggest strong similarities in tolerability and efficacy when comparing real-world and clinical trial administration of IRd.

Routine clinical use was associated with an overall response rate of 74%, compared with 78% in the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial. Again, showing high similarity, median PFS rates were 20.9 months and 20.6 months for the present data set and the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, respectively.

Just 4% of patients permanently discontinued ixazomib in the real-world study, compared with 17% in the clinical trial, suggesting that IRd may be better tolerated in routine clinical practice than the trial data indicated.

“IRd is effective in this setting,” Dr. Cook said. “Bear in mind that patients in the real-world database were further down the line in terms of the treatment pathway, they had prior heavier exposure to bortezomib and lenalidomide, and their performance status was slightly less impressive than it was in [TOURMALINE‑MM1]; therefore, to see this level of response in the real world is very pleasing.”

When asked by an attendee if clinical trials should push for inclusion of patients more representative of real-world populations, Dr. Cook said no. “I think the way we conduct phase 3 clinical trials, in particular, has to be the way it is in order for us to ensure that we can actually get the absolute efficacy and the safety, and that has to be done by a refined population, I’m afraid,” he said.

However, Dr. Cook supported efforts to improve reliability of data for clinicians at the time of drug licensing.

“We should be running real-world exposure in parallel with phase 3 studies, which is harder to do but just requires a bit of imagination,” Dr. Cook said.

The study was funded by Takeda. The investigators reported financial relationships with Takeda and other companies.

SOURCE: Cook G et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-018.

What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Two days of testimony and discussion by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that gave new scrutiny to emerging complications and signals of complications in patients who received breast implants showed that powerful, emotion-filled vignettes from affected patients could engender sympathy and recommendations for action by an expert panel. But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.

The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.

Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),

Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.

The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.

Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.

In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.

In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.

Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”

Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.

[email protected]
 

What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Two days of testimony and discussion by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that gave new scrutiny to emerging complications and signals of complications in patients who received breast implants showed that powerful, emotion-filled vignettes from affected patients could engender sympathy and recommendations for action by an expert panel. But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.

The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.

Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),

Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.

The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.

Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.

In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.

In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.

Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”

Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.

[email protected]
 

What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Two days of testimony and discussion by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that gave new scrutiny to emerging complications and signals of complications in patients who received breast implants showed that powerful, emotion-filled vignettes from affected patients could engender sympathy and recommendations for action by an expert panel. But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.

The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.

Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),

Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.

The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.

Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.

In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.

In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.

Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”

Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.

[email protected]
 

Click here to download this supplement. 

Click here to download this supplement. 

Click here to download this supplement.