Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is declining to approve the investigational antifungal olorofim and is asking for more data, according to a news release from the manufacturer, F2G.

Olorofim, (formerly known as F901318) is the first in the orotomide class of antifungals to be evaluated clinically for the treatment of invasive mold infections. Its maker, F2G, is a biotech company based in Manchester, England, that focuses on developing drugs for rare fungal diseases.

The company says it remains optimistic and will address the FDA’s requirements and continue to seek approval.

The FDA’s denial comes as fungal infections are becoming increasingly common and resistant to treatment. There are only four antifungal classes currently available, and there are few new candidates in the pipeline. No new classes of antifungals have been developed in 2 decades.

David Andes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization he shares the hope that the company can meet the requirements to gain approval.

“Some of the early results were really exciting,” he said. “People are enthusiastic about the compound because it has a novel mechanism of action, and it is active against a group of fungi that we have limited to no options for.”
 

Early results ‘exciting’

Dr. Andes said several physicians have been able to prescribe olorofim under the compassionate use program “and have witnessed success.”

Olorofim is the first antifungal agent to be granted breakthrough therapy designation, which the FDA granted in November 2019 for the treatment of invasive mold infections for patients with limited or no treatment options, including patients with refractory aspergillosis or those who are intolerant of currently available therapy. It is also indicated for infections due to Lomentospora prolificans, Scedosporium, and Scopulariopsis species.

Olorofim received a second breakthrough therapy designation in October 2020. The second designation was granted for treatment of central nervous system coccidioidomycosis that is refractory or for cases that cannot be treated with standard-of-care therapy.

It is very difficult for patients to be approved to receive compassionate use medicines, Dr. Andes pointed out. “I’d like to have access sooner rather than later,” he added.

Dr. Andes says the drugs are expensive and are time consuming to produce. And with antifungals, it is difficult to demonstrate safety in comparison with other antimicrobial agents because “it’s hard to hurt a fungus without having toxicity with human cells.”
 

Complete response letter issued

F2G received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its new drug application for olorofim, according to the news release issued by the company. “While F2G is disappointed with this outcome, we remain optimistic about olorofim’s potential to address an unmet need for patients with invasive fungal infections who have exhausted their treatment alternatives,” Francesco Maria Lavino, chief executive officer, said in the release. “We are assessing the details of the Complete Response Letter, and we plan to meet with the FDA to discuss it further.”

Dr. Andes says few other antifungals have made it as far as olorofim in clinical trials.

Lance B. Price, PhD, codirector of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University in Washington, told this news organization that despite the lack of antifungals in the pipeline, “We can’t allow our desperation to override the checkpoints that ensure that antifungals are safe to use in people.”

In the meantime, he said, it is important to preserve the utility of current antifungals by avoiding overusing them in medicine and agriculture.

“Sadly,” he said, “a drug called ipflufenoquin, which works by a similar mode of action as olorofim, has already been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use in plant agriculture. This could weaken the effectiveness of olorofim for treating things like Aspergillus infections even before the drug has been approved for use in humans.”
 

Plant drug undermining olorofim efficacy in humans

“While I’m sure this makes financial sense for the makers of ipflufenoquin, it borders on insanity from a public health perspective,” Dr. Price said.

Meanwhile, the global threat of fungal infections grows. The World Health Organization has launched its first-ever list of health-threatening fungi. Authors of a WHO report that contains the list write, “The invasive forms of these fungal infections often affect severely ill patients and those with significant underlying immune system–related conditions.”

F2G will continue to expand olorofim’s clinical trial program, according to the company’s statement. Along with its partner, Shionogi, it is enrolling patients with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis in a global phase 3 trial (OASIS), which will compare outcomes after treatment with olorofim in comparison with amphotericin B liposome (AmBisome) followed by standard of care.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is declining to approve the investigational antifungal olorofim and is asking for more data, according to a news release from the manufacturer, F2G.

Olorofim, (formerly known as F901318) is the first in the orotomide class of antifungals to be evaluated clinically for the treatment of invasive mold infections. Its maker, F2G, is a biotech company based in Manchester, England, that focuses on developing drugs for rare fungal diseases.

The company says it remains optimistic and will address the FDA’s requirements and continue to seek approval.

The FDA’s denial comes as fungal infections are becoming increasingly common and resistant to treatment. There are only four antifungal classes currently available, and there are few new candidates in the pipeline. No new classes of antifungals have been developed in 2 decades.

David Andes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization he shares the hope that the company can meet the requirements to gain approval.

“Some of the early results were really exciting,” he said. “People are enthusiastic about the compound because it has a novel mechanism of action, and it is active against a group of fungi that we have limited to no options for.”
 

Early results ‘exciting’

Dr. Andes said several physicians have been able to prescribe olorofim under the compassionate use program “and have witnessed success.”

Olorofim is the first antifungal agent to be granted breakthrough therapy designation, which the FDA granted in November 2019 for the treatment of invasive mold infections for patients with limited or no treatment options, including patients with refractory aspergillosis or those who are intolerant of currently available therapy. It is also indicated for infections due to Lomentospora prolificans, Scedosporium, and Scopulariopsis species.

Olorofim received a second breakthrough therapy designation in October 2020. The second designation was granted for treatment of central nervous system coccidioidomycosis that is refractory or for cases that cannot be treated with standard-of-care therapy.

It is very difficult for patients to be approved to receive compassionate use medicines, Dr. Andes pointed out. “I’d like to have access sooner rather than later,” he added.

Dr. Andes says the drugs are expensive and are time consuming to produce. And with antifungals, it is difficult to demonstrate safety in comparison with other antimicrobial agents because “it’s hard to hurt a fungus without having toxicity with human cells.”
 

Complete response letter issued

F2G received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its new drug application for olorofim, according to the news release issued by the company. “While F2G is disappointed with this outcome, we remain optimistic about olorofim’s potential to address an unmet need for patients with invasive fungal infections who have exhausted their treatment alternatives,” Francesco Maria Lavino, chief executive officer, said in the release. “We are assessing the details of the Complete Response Letter, and we plan to meet with the FDA to discuss it further.”

Dr. Andes says few other antifungals have made it as far as olorofim in clinical trials.

Lance B. Price, PhD, codirector of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University in Washington, told this news organization that despite the lack of antifungals in the pipeline, “We can’t allow our desperation to override the checkpoints that ensure that antifungals are safe to use in people.”

In the meantime, he said, it is important to preserve the utility of current antifungals by avoiding overusing them in medicine and agriculture.

“Sadly,” he said, “a drug called ipflufenoquin, which works by a similar mode of action as olorofim, has already been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use in plant agriculture. This could weaken the effectiveness of olorofim for treating things like Aspergillus infections even before the drug has been approved for use in humans.”
 

Plant drug undermining olorofim efficacy in humans

“While I’m sure this makes financial sense for the makers of ipflufenoquin, it borders on insanity from a public health perspective,” Dr. Price said.

Meanwhile, the global threat of fungal infections grows. The World Health Organization has launched its first-ever list of health-threatening fungi. Authors of a WHO report that contains the list write, “The invasive forms of these fungal infections often affect severely ill patients and those with significant underlying immune system–related conditions.”

F2G will continue to expand olorofim’s clinical trial program, according to the company’s statement. Along with its partner, Shionogi, it is enrolling patients with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis in a global phase 3 trial (OASIS), which will compare outcomes after treatment with olorofim in comparison with amphotericin B liposome (AmBisome) followed by standard of care.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is declining to approve the investigational antifungal olorofim and is asking for more data, according to a news release from the manufacturer, F2G.

Olorofim, (formerly known as F901318) is the first in the orotomide class of antifungals to be evaluated clinically for the treatment of invasive mold infections. Its maker, F2G, is a biotech company based in Manchester, England, that focuses on developing drugs for rare fungal diseases.

The company says it remains optimistic and will address the FDA’s requirements and continue to seek approval.

The FDA’s denial comes as fungal infections are becoming increasingly common and resistant to treatment. There are only four antifungal classes currently available, and there are few new candidates in the pipeline. No new classes of antifungals have been developed in 2 decades.

David Andes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization he shares the hope that the company can meet the requirements to gain approval.

“Some of the early results were really exciting,” he said. “People are enthusiastic about the compound because it has a novel mechanism of action, and it is active against a group of fungi that we have limited to no options for.”
 

Early results ‘exciting’

Dr. Andes said several physicians have been able to prescribe olorofim under the compassionate use program “and have witnessed success.”

Olorofim is the first antifungal agent to be granted breakthrough therapy designation, which the FDA granted in November 2019 for the treatment of invasive mold infections for patients with limited or no treatment options, including patients with refractory aspergillosis or those who are intolerant of currently available therapy. It is also indicated for infections due to Lomentospora prolificans, Scedosporium, and Scopulariopsis species.

Olorofim received a second breakthrough therapy designation in October 2020. The second designation was granted for treatment of central nervous system coccidioidomycosis that is refractory or for cases that cannot be treated with standard-of-care therapy.

It is very difficult for patients to be approved to receive compassionate use medicines, Dr. Andes pointed out. “I’d like to have access sooner rather than later,” he added.

Dr. Andes says the drugs are expensive and are time consuming to produce. And with antifungals, it is difficult to demonstrate safety in comparison with other antimicrobial agents because “it’s hard to hurt a fungus without having toxicity with human cells.”
 

Complete response letter issued

F2G received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its new drug application for olorofim, according to the news release issued by the company. “While F2G is disappointed with this outcome, we remain optimistic about olorofim’s potential to address an unmet need for patients with invasive fungal infections who have exhausted their treatment alternatives,” Francesco Maria Lavino, chief executive officer, said in the release. “We are assessing the details of the Complete Response Letter, and we plan to meet with the FDA to discuss it further.”

Dr. Andes says few other antifungals have made it as far as olorofim in clinical trials.

Lance B. Price, PhD, codirector of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University in Washington, told this news organization that despite the lack of antifungals in the pipeline, “We can’t allow our desperation to override the checkpoints that ensure that antifungals are safe to use in people.”

In the meantime, he said, it is important to preserve the utility of current antifungals by avoiding overusing them in medicine and agriculture.

“Sadly,” he said, “a drug called ipflufenoquin, which works by a similar mode of action as olorofim, has already been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use in plant agriculture. This could weaken the effectiveness of olorofim for treating things like Aspergillus infections even before the drug has been approved for use in humans.”
 

Plant drug undermining olorofim efficacy in humans

“While I’m sure this makes financial sense for the makers of ipflufenoquin, it borders on insanity from a public health perspective,” Dr. Price said.

Meanwhile, the global threat of fungal infections grows. The World Health Organization has launched its first-ever list of health-threatening fungi. Authors of a WHO report that contains the list write, “The invasive forms of these fungal infections often affect severely ill patients and those with significant underlying immune system–related conditions.”

F2G will continue to expand olorofim’s clinical trial program, according to the company’s statement. Along with its partner, Shionogi, it is enrolling patients with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis in a global phase 3 trial (OASIS), which will compare outcomes after treatment with olorofim in comparison with amphotericin B liposome (AmBisome) followed by standard of care.

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

TOPLINE:

Therapists’ oxytocin levels significantly affect the association between patients’ negative emotions and reduction in their depressive symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Evidence suggests patient experiences of negative emotions predict outcomes of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD), but mechanisms remain unclear.
• Researchers used a mediation model based on the role of oxytocin (OT) in attachment relationships, such as between parent and infant.
• They collected 435 oxytocin samples pre- and post-session from therapists of 62 patients receiving psychotherapy for MDD.
• Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) was administered to patients before sessions, and patients reported their in-session emotions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher negative emotion levels of patients predicted higher therapist oxytocin levels on the post-session assessment, when controlling for the pre-session oxytocin (“a” path [same-session path between negative affect and OT levels]: 0.11; standard error, 0.05; P = 03; 95% confidence interval, 0.003-0.20)
• Higher therapist oxytocin levels predicted lower depression severity in the next session (“b” path [time-lagged association between post-session OT levels and depression severity]: –0.97; SE, 0.34; P = .005; 95 % CI, –1.57 to –0.22)
• An increase in therapists’ oxytocin in response to patients’ negative emotions may represent activation of the therapists’ caregiving system signaling the emergence of a healthy therapeutic interaction.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that therapists’ oxytocin responses could potentially serve as a biomarker of an effective therapeutic process,” the researchers write.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Hadar Fisher, department of psychology, University of Haifa, Israel, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size, while one of the largest in studies looking at oxytocin in psychotherapy, still has limited statistical power. The study used post-session retrospective self-reports to measure negative emotions, which focused on patients’ experiences rather than expression of these emotions.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation. The authors report no competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Therapists’ oxytocin levels significantly affect the association between patients’ negative emotions and reduction in their depressive symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Evidence suggests patient experiences of negative emotions predict outcomes of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD), but mechanisms remain unclear.
• Researchers used a mediation model based on the role of oxytocin (OT) in attachment relationships, such as between parent and infant.
• They collected 435 oxytocin samples pre- and post-session from therapists of 62 patients receiving psychotherapy for MDD.
• Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) was administered to patients before sessions, and patients reported their in-session emotions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher negative emotion levels of patients predicted higher therapist oxytocin levels on the post-session assessment, when controlling for the pre-session oxytocin (“a” path [same-session path between negative affect and OT levels]: 0.11; standard error, 0.05; P = 03; 95% confidence interval, 0.003-0.20)
• Higher therapist oxytocin levels predicted lower depression severity in the next session (“b” path [time-lagged association between post-session OT levels and depression severity]: –0.97; SE, 0.34; P = .005; 95 % CI, –1.57 to –0.22)
• An increase in therapists’ oxytocin in response to patients’ negative emotions may represent activation of the therapists’ caregiving system signaling the emergence of a healthy therapeutic interaction.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that therapists’ oxytocin responses could potentially serve as a biomarker of an effective therapeutic process,” the researchers write.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Hadar Fisher, department of psychology, University of Haifa, Israel, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size, while one of the largest in studies looking at oxytocin in psychotherapy, still has limited statistical power. The study used post-session retrospective self-reports to measure negative emotions, which focused on patients’ experiences rather than expression of these emotions.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation. The authors report no competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Therapists’ oxytocin levels significantly affect the association between patients’ negative emotions and reduction in their depressive symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Evidence suggests patient experiences of negative emotions predict outcomes of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD), but mechanisms remain unclear.
• Researchers used a mediation model based on the role of oxytocin (OT) in attachment relationships, such as between parent and infant.
• They collected 435 oxytocin samples pre- and post-session from therapists of 62 patients receiving psychotherapy for MDD.
• Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) was administered to patients before sessions, and patients reported their in-session emotions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher negative emotion levels of patients predicted higher therapist oxytocin levels on the post-session assessment, when controlling for the pre-session oxytocin (“a” path [same-session path between negative affect and OT levels]: 0.11; standard error, 0.05; P = 03; 95% confidence interval, 0.003-0.20)
• Higher therapist oxytocin levels predicted lower depression severity in the next session (“b” path [time-lagged association between post-session OT levels and depression severity]: –0.97; SE, 0.34; P = .005; 95 % CI, –1.57 to –0.22)
• An increase in therapists’ oxytocin in response to patients’ negative emotions may represent activation of the therapists’ caregiving system signaling the emergence of a healthy therapeutic interaction.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that therapists’ oxytocin responses could potentially serve as a biomarker of an effective therapeutic process,” the researchers write.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Hadar Fisher, department of psychology, University of Haifa, Israel, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size, while one of the largest in studies looking at oxytocin in psychotherapy, still has limited statistical power. The study used post-session retrospective self-reports to measure negative emotions, which focused on patients’ experiences rather than expression of these emotions.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation. The authors report no competing interests.

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

Almost one-third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated at academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies may be nonadherent to biologic therapy, resulting in more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, based on a retrospective study.

Nonadherence became increasingly common in the presence of four previously reported risk factors, including smoking status, narcotic use, psychiatric history, and prior biologic use, reported lead author Lauren A. George, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Identifying patients at risk for nonadherence is important to develop strategies to improve adherence,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “The aim of this analysis was to evaluate adherence across several academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies, to assess if previously identified risk factors for nonadherence remained significant across several diverse IBD centers, and to evaluate outcomes associated with nonadherence.”

Three tertiary care IBD clinics provided data from 608 patients with IBD. Inclusion required at least three consecutive prescription claims. All biologics were self-injectable, including adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab.

Primary outcomes were medication possession ratio (MPR) and adherence, with nonadherence defined by an MPR lower than 0.86. Secondary outcomes included ED visits and hospitalizations.

After a median follow-up period of 903 days, the overall MPR was 0.95, with adherence of 68%-70%, which is considered “high,” according to Dr. George and colleagues, as it exceeds previously reported national adherence rates.

“[Findings were] similar across all centers, geographic regions, and patient demographics,” the investigators noted.

The four previously described risk factors did in fact predict nonadherence, with likelihood of nonadherence significantly increasing with each additional risk factor present. Patients with all four risk factors had less than 50% adherence.

Nonadherence was also significantly associated with more ED visits and hospitalizations, highlighting “the impact of biologic adherence on direct patient outcomes and healthcare costs,” the investigators wrote.

“All healthcare industry stakeholders including healthcare systems, manufacturers, and third-party benefit providers need to understand the importance of improving patient adherence,” Dr. George and colleagues concluded. “Decreasing barriers to self-injectable medication acquisition, increasing direct patient interaction with integrated pharmacy teams, and comprehensive patient education are a start to improving patient adherence. In addition, we propose that enhanced care pathways for patients with risk factors for nonadherence would improve adherence and outcomes.”

No funding was reported. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, and others.

This article was updated 7/13/23.

Almost one-third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated at academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies may be nonadherent to biologic therapy, resulting in more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, based on a retrospective study.

Nonadherence became increasingly common in the presence of four previously reported risk factors, including smoking status, narcotic use, psychiatric history, and prior biologic use, reported lead author Lauren A. George, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Identifying patients at risk for nonadherence is important to develop strategies to improve adherence,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “The aim of this analysis was to evaluate adherence across several academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies, to assess if previously identified risk factors for nonadherence remained significant across several diverse IBD centers, and to evaluate outcomes associated with nonadherence.”

Three tertiary care IBD clinics provided data from 608 patients with IBD. Inclusion required at least three consecutive prescription claims. All biologics were self-injectable, including adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab.

Primary outcomes were medication possession ratio (MPR) and adherence, with nonadherence defined by an MPR lower than 0.86. Secondary outcomes included ED visits and hospitalizations.

After a median follow-up period of 903 days, the overall MPR was 0.95, with adherence of 68%-70%, which is considered “high,” according to Dr. George and colleagues, as it exceeds previously reported national adherence rates.

“[Findings were] similar across all centers, geographic regions, and patient demographics,” the investigators noted.

The four previously described risk factors did in fact predict nonadherence, with likelihood of nonadherence significantly increasing with each additional risk factor present. Patients with all four risk factors had less than 50% adherence.

Nonadherence was also significantly associated with more ED visits and hospitalizations, highlighting “the impact of biologic adherence on direct patient outcomes and healthcare costs,” the investigators wrote.

“All healthcare industry stakeholders including healthcare systems, manufacturers, and third-party benefit providers need to understand the importance of improving patient adherence,” Dr. George and colleagues concluded. “Decreasing barriers to self-injectable medication acquisition, increasing direct patient interaction with integrated pharmacy teams, and comprehensive patient education are a start to improving patient adherence. In addition, we propose that enhanced care pathways for patients with risk factors for nonadherence would improve adherence and outcomes.”

No funding was reported. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, and others.

This article was updated 7/13/23.

Almost one-third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated at academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies may be nonadherent to biologic therapy, resulting in more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, based on a retrospective study.

Nonadherence became increasingly common in the presence of four previously reported risk factors, including smoking status, narcotic use, psychiatric history, and prior biologic use, reported lead author Lauren A. George, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Identifying patients at risk for nonadherence is important to develop strategies to improve adherence,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “The aim of this analysis was to evaluate adherence across several academic centers with integrated specialty pharmacies, to assess if previously identified risk factors for nonadherence remained significant across several diverse IBD centers, and to evaluate outcomes associated with nonadherence.”

Three tertiary care IBD clinics provided data from 608 patients with IBD. Inclusion required at least three consecutive prescription claims. All biologics were self-injectable, including adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab.

Primary outcomes were medication possession ratio (MPR) and adherence, with nonadherence defined by an MPR lower than 0.86. Secondary outcomes included ED visits and hospitalizations.

After a median follow-up period of 903 days, the overall MPR was 0.95, with adherence of 68%-70%, which is considered “high,” according to Dr. George and colleagues, as it exceeds previously reported national adherence rates.

“[Findings were] similar across all centers, geographic regions, and patient demographics,” the investigators noted.

The four previously described risk factors did in fact predict nonadherence, with likelihood of nonadherence significantly increasing with each additional risk factor present. Patients with all four risk factors had less than 50% adherence.

Nonadherence was also significantly associated with more ED visits and hospitalizations, highlighting “the impact of biologic adherence on direct patient outcomes and healthcare costs,” the investigators wrote.

“All healthcare industry stakeholders including healthcare systems, manufacturers, and third-party benefit providers need to understand the importance of improving patient adherence,” Dr. George and colleagues concluded. “Decreasing barriers to self-injectable medication acquisition, increasing direct patient interaction with integrated pharmacy teams, and comprehensive patient education are a start to improving patient adherence. In addition, we propose that enhanced care pathways for patients with risk factors for nonadherence would improve adherence and outcomes.”

No funding was reported. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, and others.

This article was updated 7/13/23.

The SmartPill, a wireless ingestible capsule containing sensors that monitor pressure, pH, transit time and temperature as it passes through the gastrointestinal tract, is being discontinued, a spokesperson for its manufacturer, Medtronic, confirmed.

In a June 22 email, company representative Oded Cojocaru stated that the decision followed “several months of ongoing challenges with reliable supply of critical components to our SmartPill motility testing system.”

The SmartPill motility testing system’s maturity “means we cannot source an alternative supplier for the specialized components required to manufacture the SmartPill capsules and recorders. As a result, we have made the difficult decision to discontinue global sales,” Mr. Cojocaru said.

Customers have been notified and all sales of the device will be discontinued across all clinical applications when available inventory is exhausted, which is expected to occur in September. Medtronic has no plans to develop an alternative to the device.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Braden Kuo, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, a motility specialist who took part in the SmartPill’s development and testing at various stages, said that Medtronic’s decision to discontinue the device was already known among his GI colleagues, and was the subject of concern as there is no analogous Food and Drug Administration–approved device on the market. 

While the device’s clinical adoption “is not extremely widespread,” Dr. Kuo said, thousands of SmartPills are still used in GI clinics every year, and insurance tends to cover their use, especially in major metropolitan areas.

Originally developed by the SmartPill Corporation of Buffalo, N.Y., the device was first cleared by the FDA in 2006 for the evaluation of colonic transit time in patients with chronic constipation and suspected gastroparesis. Six years later that company was sold to Given Imaging, an Israeli firm making ingestible capsule endoscopy devices with cameras. In 2015, Given Imaging was purchased by Medtronic.

The SmartPill is ingested under clinical supervision, after which a patient can return home and allow the capsule to pass naturally through the body over a period of days. It is used in tandem with proprietary monitoring hardware, software, and a special food product. Known limitations of the device include that it can be difficult for some patients to swallow, and that it can get stuck in the lower digestive tract. Its use is contraindicated in patients with dysphagia, stricture, or bowel obstruction.

“Many motility doctors and some general GI docs find this test helpful,” said Dr. Kuo, who formerly served as a scientific adviser to SmartPill and later ran trials of the technology for Medtronic. It is useful as an alternative to costlier scintigraphy, he said, or to follow up after a negative endoscopy result. 

The SmartPill has also been fruitful for GI research, Dr. Kuo added, because the capsule is easy to administer, compared with nonambulatory ways of studying motility, which limited enrollment. “Now we can do studies with several hundred people, because this is much more easily tolerated, and we’ve made a lot of interesting insights about GI physiology and pathophysiology as a result of this technology.”

During its 17 years on the market, Dr. Kuo said, the SmartPill has helped galvanize interest in other capsule applications, including for drug delivery, imaging and sampling. 

Dr. Jack Semler

Jack Semler, PhD, the former chief technology officer of SmartPill and who alongside Dr. Kuo has coauthored some 40 papers on the SmartPill, said he, too, lamented the decision by Medtronic. “The company has only so many resources to devote to upgrading technology and those resources just aren’t available for this particular product,” he speculated. Nonetheless, Dr. Semler said, “I still feel there is a real untapped potential.”

Dr. Kuo and Dr. Semler both disclosed previous paid work for SmartPill and Medtronic. Both are currently consulting for Atmo Biosciences, a company that is developing a different motility capsule technology.

The SmartPill, a wireless ingestible capsule containing sensors that monitor pressure, pH, transit time and temperature as it passes through the gastrointestinal tract, is being discontinued, a spokesperson for its manufacturer, Medtronic, confirmed.

In a June 22 email, company representative Oded Cojocaru stated that the decision followed “several months of ongoing challenges with reliable supply of critical components to our SmartPill motility testing system.”

The SmartPill motility testing system’s maturity “means we cannot source an alternative supplier for the specialized components required to manufacture the SmartPill capsules and recorders. As a result, we have made the difficult decision to discontinue global sales,” Mr. Cojocaru said.

Customers have been notified and all sales of the device will be discontinued across all clinical applications when available inventory is exhausted, which is expected to occur in September. Medtronic has no plans to develop an alternative to the device.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Braden Kuo, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, a motility specialist who took part in the SmartPill’s development and testing at various stages, said that Medtronic’s decision to discontinue the device was already known among his GI colleagues, and was the subject of concern as there is no analogous Food and Drug Administration–approved device on the market. 

While the device’s clinical adoption “is not extremely widespread,” Dr. Kuo said, thousands of SmartPills are still used in GI clinics every year, and insurance tends to cover their use, especially in major metropolitan areas.

Originally developed by the SmartPill Corporation of Buffalo, N.Y., the device was first cleared by the FDA in 2006 for the evaluation of colonic transit time in patients with chronic constipation and suspected gastroparesis. Six years later that company was sold to Given Imaging, an Israeli firm making ingestible capsule endoscopy devices with cameras. In 2015, Given Imaging was purchased by Medtronic.

The SmartPill is ingested under clinical supervision, after which a patient can return home and allow the capsule to pass naturally through the body over a period of days. It is used in tandem with proprietary monitoring hardware, software, and a special food product. Known limitations of the device include that it can be difficult for some patients to swallow, and that it can get stuck in the lower digestive tract. Its use is contraindicated in patients with dysphagia, stricture, or bowel obstruction.

“Many motility doctors and some general GI docs find this test helpful,” said Dr. Kuo, who formerly served as a scientific adviser to SmartPill and later ran trials of the technology for Medtronic. It is useful as an alternative to costlier scintigraphy, he said, or to follow up after a negative endoscopy result. 

The SmartPill has also been fruitful for GI research, Dr. Kuo added, because the capsule is easy to administer, compared with nonambulatory ways of studying motility, which limited enrollment. “Now we can do studies with several hundred people, because this is much more easily tolerated, and we’ve made a lot of interesting insights about GI physiology and pathophysiology as a result of this technology.”

During its 17 years on the market, Dr. Kuo said, the SmartPill has helped galvanize interest in other capsule applications, including for drug delivery, imaging and sampling. 

Dr. Jack Semler

Jack Semler, PhD, the former chief technology officer of SmartPill and who alongside Dr. Kuo has coauthored some 40 papers on the SmartPill, said he, too, lamented the decision by Medtronic. “The company has only so many resources to devote to upgrading technology and those resources just aren’t available for this particular product,” he speculated. Nonetheless, Dr. Semler said, “I still feel there is a real untapped potential.”

Dr. Kuo and Dr. Semler both disclosed previous paid work for SmartPill and Medtronic. Both are currently consulting for Atmo Biosciences, a company that is developing a different motility capsule technology.

The SmartPill, a wireless ingestible capsule containing sensors that monitor pressure, pH, transit time and temperature as it passes through the gastrointestinal tract, is being discontinued, a spokesperson for its manufacturer, Medtronic, confirmed.

In a June 22 email, company representative Oded Cojocaru stated that the decision followed “several months of ongoing challenges with reliable supply of critical components to our SmartPill motility testing system.”

The SmartPill motility testing system’s maturity “means we cannot source an alternative supplier for the specialized components required to manufacture the SmartPill capsules and recorders. As a result, we have made the difficult decision to discontinue global sales,” Mr. Cojocaru said.

Customers have been notified and all sales of the device will be discontinued across all clinical applications when available inventory is exhausted, which is expected to occur in September. Medtronic has no plans to develop an alternative to the device.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Braden Kuo, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, a motility specialist who took part in the SmartPill’s development and testing at various stages, said that Medtronic’s decision to discontinue the device was already known among his GI colleagues, and was the subject of concern as there is no analogous Food and Drug Administration–approved device on the market. 

While the device’s clinical adoption “is not extremely widespread,” Dr. Kuo said, thousands of SmartPills are still used in GI clinics every year, and insurance tends to cover their use, especially in major metropolitan areas.

Originally developed by the SmartPill Corporation of Buffalo, N.Y., the device was first cleared by the FDA in 2006 for the evaluation of colonic transit time in patients with chronic constipation and suspected gastroparesis. Six years later that company was sold to Given Imaging, an Israeli firm making ingestible capsule endoscopy devices with cameras. In 2015, Given Imaging was purchased by Medtronic.

The SmartPill is ingested under clinical supervision, after which a patient can return home and allow the capsule to pass naturally through the body over a period of days. It is used in tandem with proprietary monitoring hardware, software, and a special food product. Known limitations of the device include that it can be difficult for some patients to swallow, and that it can get stuck in the lower digestive tract. Its use is contraindicated in patients with dysphagia, stricture, or bowel obstruction.

“Many motility doctors and some general GI docs find this test helpful,” said Dr. Kuo, who formerly served as a scientific adviser to SmartPill and later ran trials of the technology for Medtronic. It is useful as an alternative to costlier scintigraphy, he said, or to follow up after a negative endoscopy result. 

The SmartPill has also been fruitful for GI research, Dr. Kuo added, because the capsule is easy to administer, compared with nonambulatory ways of studying motility, which limited enrollment. “Now we can do studies with several hundred people, because this is much more easily tolerated, and we’ve made a lot of interesting insights about GI physiology and pathophysiology as a result of this technology.”

During its 17 years on the market, Dr. Kuo said, the SmartPill has helped galvanize interest in other capsule applications, including for drug delivery, imaging and sampling. 

Dr. Jack Semler

Jack Semler, PhD, the former chief technology officer of SmartPill and who alongside Dr. Kuo has coauthored some 40 papers on the SmartPill, said he, too, lamented the decision by Medtronic. “The company has only so many resources to devote to upgrading technology and those resources just aren’t available for this particular product,” he speculated. Nonetheless, Dr. Semler said, “I still feel there is a real untapped potential.”

Dr. Kuo and Dr. Semler both disclosed previous paid work for SmartPill and Medtronic. Both are currently consulting for Atmo Biosciences, a company that is developing a different motility capsule technology.

Dr Harold J. Burstein, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, highlights key abstracts on early breast cancer from the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting. 

Dr Burstein first reports on exciting results from the phase 3 NATALEE trial, which compared adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) vs ET alone in patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer and found that the combination lowered risk for recurrence.  

The results of NATALEE, together with the recent findings of the monarchE trial, provide strong evidence that the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor to ET is useful in the adjuvant setting. Dr Burstein suggests that these findings may point to an emerging treatment paradigm in HR+/HER2- patients, particularly those with higher-risk breast cancers. 

Dr Burstein next discusses important data from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Their meta-analysis of 25 randomized trials on ovarian ablation in premenopausal women showed that ovarian ablation provided a substantial reduction in 15-year risk for recurrence and death. 

Finally, Dr Burstein reports on data from an analysis of patients enrolled in the PENELOPE-B trial to assess the value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in predicting clinical relapse. Dr Burstein reports that the results indicated that ctDNA was a strong prognostic factor for disease recurrence. 

--

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr Harold J. Burstein, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, highlights key abstracts on early breast cancer from the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting. 

Dr Burstein first reports on exciting results from the phase 3 NATALEE trial, which compared adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) vs ET alone in patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer and found that the combination lowered risk for recurrence.  

The results of NATALEE, together with the recent findings of the monarchE trial, provide strong evidence that the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor to ET is useful in the adjuvant setting. Dr Burstein suggests that these findings may point to an emerging treatment paradigm in HR+/HER2- patients, particularly those with higher-risk breast cancers. 

Dr Burstein next discusses important data from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Their meta-analysis of 25 randomized trials on ovarian ablation in premenopausal women showed that ovarian ablation provided a substantial reduction in 15-year risk for recurrence and death. 

Finally, Dr Burstein reports on data from an analysis of patients enrolled in the PENELOPE-B trial to assess the value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in predicting clinical relapse. Dr Burstein reports that the results indicated that ctDNA was a strong prognostic factor for disease recurrence. 

--

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr Harold J. Burstein, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, highlights key abstracts on early breast cancer from the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting. 

Dr Burstein first reports on exciting results from the phase 3 NATALEE trial, which compared adjuvant use of CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) vs ET alone in patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer and found that the combination lowered risk for recurrence.  

The results of NATALEE, together with the recent findings of the monarchE trial, provide strong evidence that the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor to ET is useful in the adjuvant setting. Dr Burstein suggests that these findings may point to an emerging treatment paradigm in HR+/HER2- patients, particularly those with higher-risk breast cancers. 

Dr Burstein next discusses important data from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Their meta-analysis of 25 randomized trials on ovarian ablation in premenopausal women showed that ovarian ablation provided a substantial reduction in 15-year risk for recurrence and death. 

Finally, Dr Burstein reports on data from an analysis of patients enrolled in the PENELOPE-B trial to assess the value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in predicting clinical relapse. Dr Burstein reports that the results indicated that ctDNA was a strong prognostic factor for disease recurrence. 

--

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Low-calorie tastes sweeter with a little salt

Diet and sugar-free foods and drinks seem like a good idea, but it’s hard to get past that strange aftertaste, right? It’s the calling card for the noncaloric aspartame- and stevia-containing sweeteners that we consume to make us feel like we can have the best of both worlds.

That weird lingering taste can be a total turn-off for some (raises hand), but researchers have found an almost facepalm solution to the not-so-sweet problem, and it’s salt.

Jason Tuinstra/Unsplash

Now, the concept of sweet and salty is not a far-fetched partnership when it comes to snack consumption (try M&Ms in your popcorn). The researchers at Almendra, a manufacturer of stevia sweeteners, put that iconic flavor pair to the test by adding mineral salts that have some nutritional value to lessen the effect of a stevia compound, rebaudioside A, found in noncaloric sweeteners.

The researchers added in magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride separately to lessen rebaudioside A’s intensity, but they needed so much salt that it killed the sweet taste completely. A blend of the three mineral salts, however, reduced the lingering taste by 79% and improved the real sugar-like taste. The researchers tried this blend in reduced-calorie orange juice and a citrus-flavored soft drink, improving the taste in both.

The salty and sweet match comes in for the win once again. This time helping against the fight of obesity instead of making it worse.

Pseudomonas’ Achilles’ heel is more of an Achilles’ genetic switch

Today, on the long-awaited return of “Bacteria vs. the World,” we meet one of the rock stars of infectious disease.

LOTME: Through the use of imaginary technology, we’re talking to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Thanks for joining us on such short notice, after Neisseria gonorrhoeae canceled at the last minute.

P. aeruginosa: No problem. I think we can all guess what that little devil is up to.

Benoit-Joseph Laventie, Biozentrum, University of Basel

LOTME: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem for our species. What makes you so hard to fight?

P. aeruginosa: We’ve been trying to keep that a secret, actually, but now that researchers in Switzerland and Denmark seem to have figured it out, I guess it’s okay for me to spill the beans.

LOTME: Beans? What do beans have to do with it?

P. aeruginosa: Nothing, it’s just a colloquial expression that means I’m sharing previously private information.

LOTME: Sure, we knew that. Please, continue your spilling.

P. aeruginosa: The secret is … Well, let’s just say we were a little worried when the Clash released “Should I Stay or Should I Go” back in the 1980s.

LOTME: The Clash? Now we’re really confused.

P. aeruginosa: The answer to their question, “Should I stay or should I go? is yes. Successful invasion of a human is all about division of labor. “While one fraction of the bacterial population adheres to the mucosal surface and forms a biofilm, the other subpopulation spreads to distant tissue sites,” is how the investigators described it. We can increase surface colonization by using a “job-sharing” process, they said, and even resist antibiotics because most of us remain in the protective biofilm.

LOTME: And they say you guys don’t have brains.

P. aeruginosa: But wait, there’s more. We don’t just divide the labor randomly. After the initial colonization we form two functionally distinct subpopulations. One has high levels of the bacterial signaling molecule c-di-GMP and stays put to work on the biofilm. The other group, with low levels of c-di-GMP, heads out to the surrounding tissue to continue the colonization. As project leader Urs Jenal put it, “By identifying the genetic switch, we have tracked down the Achilles heel of the pathogen.”

LOTME: Pretty clever stuff, for humans, anyway.

P. aeruginosa: We agree, but now that you know our secret, we can’t let you share it.

LOTME: Wait! The journal article’s already been published. Your secret is out. You can’t stop that by infecting me.

P. aeruginosa: True enough, but are you familiar with the fable of the scorpion and the frog? It’s our nature.

LOTME: Nooooo! N. gonorrhoeae wouldn’t have done this!
 

What a pain in the Butt

Businesses rise and businesses fall. We all know that one cursed location, that spot in town where we see businesses move in and close up in a matter of months. At the same time, though, there are also businesses that have been around as long as anyone can remember, pillars of the community.

Corydon, IN., likely has a few such long-lived shops, but it is officially down one 70-year-old family business as of late April, with the unfortunate passing of beloved local pharmacy Butt Drugs. Prescription pick-up in rear.

Bildflut/Wikimedia Commons

The business dates back to 1952, when it was founded as William H. Butt Drugs. We’re sure William Butt was never teased about his last name. Nope. No one would ever do that. After he passed the store to his children, it underwent a stint as Butt Rexall Drugs. When the shop was passed down to its third-generation and ultimately final owner, Katie Butt Beckort, she decided to simplify the name. Get right down to the bottom of things, as it were.

Butt Drugs was a popular spot, featuring an old-school soda fountain and themed souvenirs. According to Ms. Butt Beckort, people would come from miles away to buy “I love Butt Drugs” T-shirts, magnets, and so on. Yes, they knew perfectly well what they were sitting on.

So, if was such a hit, why did it close? Butt Drugs may have a hilarious name and merchandise to match, but the pharmacy portion of the pharmacy had been losing money for years. You know, the actual point of the business. As with so many things, we can blame it on the insurance companies. More than half the drugs that passed through Butt Drugs’ doors were sold at a loss, because the insurance companies refused to reimburse the store more than the wholesale price of the drug. Not even a good butt drug could clear up that financial diarrhea.

And so, we’ve lost Butt Drugs forever. Spicy food enthusiasts, coffee drinkers, and all patrons of Taco Bell, take a moment to reflect and mourn on what you’ve lost. No more Butt Drugs to relieve your suffering. A true kick in the butt indeed.

Low-calorie tastes sweeter with a little salt

Diet and sugar-free foods and drinks seem like a good idea, but it’s hard to get past that strange aftertaste, right? It’s the calling card for the noncaloric aspartame- and stevia-containing sweeteners that we consume to make us feel like we can have the best of both worlds.

That weird lingering taste can be a total turn-off for some (raises hand), but researchers have found an almost facepalm solution to the not-so-sweet problem, and it’s salt.

Jason Tuinstra/Unsplash

Now, the concept of sweet and salty is not a far-fetched partnership when it comes to snack consumption (try M&Ms in your popcorn). The researchers at Almendra, a manufacturer of stevia sweeteners, put that iconic flavor pair to the test by adding mineral salts that have some nutritional value to lessen the effect of a stevia compound, rebaudioside A, found in noncaloric sweeteners.

The researchers added in magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride separately to lessen rebaudioside A’s intensity, but they needed so much salt that it killed the sweet taste completely. A blend of the three mineral salts, however, reduced the lingering taste by 79% and improved the real sugar-like taste. The researchers tried this blend in reduced-calorie orange juice and a citrus-flavored soft drink, improving the taste in both.

The salty and sweet match comes in for the win once again. This time helping against the fight of obesity instead of making it worse.

Pseudomonas’ Achilles’ heel is more of an Achilles’ genetic switch

Today, on the long-awaited return of “Bacteria vs. the World,” we meet one of the rock stars of infectious disease.

LOTME: Through the use of imaginary technology, we’re talking to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Thanks for joining us on such short notice, after Neisseria gonorrhoeae canceled at the last minute.

P. aeruginosa: No problem. I think we can all guess what that little devil is up to.

Benoit-Joseph Laventie, Biozentrum, University of Basel

LOTME: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem for our species. What makes you so hard to fight?

P. aeruginosa: We’ve been trying to keep that a secret, actually, but now that researchers in Switzerland and Denmark seem to have figured it out, I guess it’s okay for me to spill the beans.

LOTME: Beans? What do beans have to do with it?

P. aeruginosa: Nothing, it’s just a colloquial expression that means I’m sharing previously private information.

LOTME: Sure, we knew that. Please, continue your spilling.

P. aeruginosa: The secret is … Well, let’s just say we were a little worried when the Clash released “Should I Stay or Should I Go” back in the 1980s.

LOTME: The Clash? Now we’re really confused.

P. aeruginosa: The answer to their question, “Should I stay or should I go? is yes. Successful invasion of a human is all about division of labor. “While one fraction of the bacterial population adheres to the mucosal surface and forms a biofilm, the other subpopulation spreads to distant tissue sites,” is how the investigators described it. We can increase surface colonization by using a “job-sharing” process, they said, and even resist antibiotics because most of us remain in the protective biofilm.

LOTME: And they say you guys don’t have brains.

P. aeruginosa: But wait, there’s more. We don’t just divide the labor randomly. After the initial colonization we form two functionally distinct subpopulations. One has high levels of the bacterial signaling molecule c-di-GMP and stays put to work on the biofilm. The other group, with low levels of c-di-GMP, heads out to the surrounding tissue to continue the colonization. As project leader Urs Jenal put it, “By identifying the genetic switch, we have tracked down the Achilles heel of the pathogen.”

LOTME: Pretty clever stuff, for humans, anyway.

P. aeruginosa: We agree, but now that you know our secret, we can’t let you share it.

LOTME: Wait! The journal article’s already been published. Your secret is out. You can’t stop that by infecting me.

P. aeruginosa: True enough, but are you familiar with the fable of the scorpion and the frog? It’s our nature.

LOTME: Nooooo! N. gonorrhoeae wouldn’t have done this!
 

What a pain in the Butt

Businesses rise and businesses fall. We all know that one cursed location, that spot in town where we see businesses move in and close up in a matter of months. At the same time, though, there are also businesses that have been around as long as anyone can remember, pillars of the community.

Corydon, IN., likely has a few such long-lived shops, but it is officially down one 70-year-old family business as of late April, with the unfortunate passing of beloved local pharmacy Butt Drugs. Prescription pick-up in rear.

Bildflut/Wikimedia Commons

The business dates back to 1952, when it was founded as William H. Butt Drugs. We’re sure William Butt was never teased about his last name. Nope. No one would ever do that. After he passed the store to his children, it underwent a stint as Butt Rexall Drugs. When the shop was passed down to its third-generation and ultimately final owner, Katie Butt Beckort, she decided to simplify the name. Get right down to the bottom of things, as it were.

Butt Drugs was a popular spot, featuring an old-school soda fountain and themed souvenirs. According to Ms. Butt Beckort, people would come from miles away to buy “I love Butt Drugs” T-shirts, magnets, and so on. Yes, they knew perfectly well what they were sitting on.

So, if was such a hit, why did it close? Butt Drugs may have a hilarious name and merchandise to match, but the pharmacy portion of the pharmacy had been losing money for years. You know, the actual point of the business. As with so many things, we can blame it on the insurance companies. More than half the drugs that passed through Butt Drugs’ doors were sold at a loss, because the insurance companies refused to reimburse the store more than the wholesale price of the drug. Not even a good butt drug could clear up that financial diarrhea.

And so, we’ve lost Butt Drugs forever. Spicy food enthusiasts, coffee drinkers, and all patrons of Taco Bell, take a moment to reflect and mourn on what you’ve lost. No more Butt Drugs to relieve your suffering. A true kick in the butt indeed.

Low-calorie tastes sweeter with a little salt

Diet and sugar-free foods and drinks seem like a good idea, but it’s hard to get past that strange aftertaste, right? It’s the calling card for the noncaloric aspartame- and stevia-containing sweeteners that we consume to make us feel like we can have the best of both worlds.

That weird lingering taste can be a total turn-off for some (raises hand), but researchers have found an almost facepalm solution to the not-so-sweet problem, and it’s salt.

Jason Tuinstra/Unsplash

Now, the concept of sweet and salty is not a far-fetched partnership when it comes to snack consumption (try M&Ms in your popcorn). The researchers at Almendra, a manufacturer of stevia sweeteners, put that iconic flavor pair to the test by adding mineral salts that have some nutritional value to lessen the effect of a stevia compound, rebaudioside A, found in noncaloric sweeteners.

The researchers added in magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride separately to lessen rebaudioside A’s intensity, but they needed so much salt that it killed the sweet taste completely. A blend of the three mineral salts, however, reduced the lingering taste by 79% and improved the real sugar-like taste. The researchers tried this blend in reduced-calorie orange juice and a citrus-flavored soft drink, improving the taste in both.

The salty and sweet match comes in for the win once again. This time helping against the fight of obesity instead of making it worse.

Pseudomonas’ Achilles’ heel is more of an Achilles’ genetic switch

Today, on the long-awaited return of “Bacteria vs. the World,” we meet one of the rock stars of infectious disease.

LOTME: Through the use of imaginary technology, we’re talking to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Thanks for joining us on such short notice, after Neisseria gonorrhoeae canceled at the last minute.

P. aeruginosa: No problem. I think we can all guess what that little devil is up to.

Benoit-Joseph Laventie, Biozentrum, University of Basel

LOTME: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem for our species. What makes you so hard to fight?

P. aeruginosa: We’ve been trying to keep that a secret, actually, but now that researchers in Switzerland and Denmark seem to have figured it out, I guess it’s okay for me to spill the beans.

LOTME: Beans? What do beans have to do with it?

P. aeruginosa: Nothing, it’s just a colloquial expression that means I’m sharing previously private information.

LOTME: Sure, we knew that. Please, continue your spilling.

P. aeruginosa: The secret is … Well, let’s just say we were a little worried when the Clash released “Should I Stay or Should I Go” back in the 1980s.

LOTME: The Clash? Now we’re really confused.

P. aeruginosa: The answer to their question, “Should I stay or should I go? is yes. Successful invasion of a human is all about division of labor. “While one fraction of the bacterial population adheres to the mucosal surface and forms a biofilm, the other subpopulation spreads to distant tissue sites,” is how the investigators described it. We can increase surface colonization by using a “job-sharing” process, they said, and even resist antibiotics because most of us remain in the protective biofilm.

LOTME: And they say you guys don’t have brains.

P. aeruginosa: But wait, there’s more. We don’t just divide the labor randomly. After the initial colonization we form two functionally distinct subpopulations. One has high levels of the bacterial signaling molecule c-di-GMP and stays put to work on the biofilm. The other group, with low levels of c-di-GMP, heads out to the surrounding tissue to continue the colonization. As project leader Urs Jenal put it, “By identifying the genetic switch, we have tracked down the Achilles heel of the pathogen.”

LOTME: Pretty clever stuff, for humans, anyway.

P. aeruginosa: We agree, but now that you know our secret, we can’t let you share it.

LOTME: Wait! The journal article’s already been published. Your secret is out. You can’t stop that by infecting me.

P. aeruginosa: True enough, but are you familiar with the fable of the scorpion and the frog? It’s our nature.

LOTME: Nooooo! N. gonorrhoeae wouldn’t have done this!
 

What a pain in the Butt

Businesses rise and businesses fall. We all know that one cursed location, that spot in town where we see businesses move in and close up in a matter of months. At the same time, though, there are also businesses that have been around as long as anyone can remember, pillars of the community.

Corydon, IN., likely has a few such long-lived shops, but it is officially down one 70-year-old family business as of late April, with the unfortunate passing of beloved local pharmacy Butt Drugs. Prescription pick-up in rear.

Bildflut/Wikimedia Commons

The business dates back to 1952, when it was founded as William H. Butt Drugs. We’re sure William Butt was never teased about his last name. Nope. No one would ever do that. After he passed the store to his children, it underwent a stint as Butt Rexall Drugs. When the shop was passed down to its third-generation and ultimately final owner, Katie Butt Beckort, she decided to simplify the name. Get right down to the bottom of things, as it were.

Butt Drugs was a popular spot, featuring an old-school soda fountain and themed souvenirs. According to Ms. Butt Beckort, people would come from miles away to buy “I love Butt Drugs” T-shirts, magnets, and so on. Yes, they knew perfectly well what they were sitting on.

So, if was such a hit, why did it close? Butt Drugs may have a hilarious name and merchandise to match, but the pharmacy portion of the pharmacy had been losing money for years. You know, the actual point of the business. As with so many things, we can blame it on the insurance companies. More than half the drugs that passed through Butt Drugs’ doors were sold at a loss, because the insurance companies refused to reimburse the store more than the wholesale price of the drug. Not even a good butt drug could clear up that financial diarrhea.

And so, we’ve lost Butt Drugs forever. Spicy food enthusiasts, coffee drinkers, and all patrons of Taco Bell, take a moment to reflect and mourn on what you’ve lost. No more Butt Drugs to relieve your suffering. A true kick in the butt indeed.

Dr Harold J. Burstein, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, presents key abstracts on metastatic breast cancer (mBC) from the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting. 

Dr Burstein first highlights results from the SONIA study, which compared endocrine therapy followed by a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the second-line with the use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first line. Although the CDK4/6 inhibitor in first-line improved progression-free survival, overall survival remained unchanged.  

Dr Burstein next discusses results from the CANKADO trial, which randomized patients with mBC to report symptoms via a smartphone app. The app users reported fewer adverse events and better quality of life. 

Dr Burstein reports on the potentially practice-changing results of the X-7/7 trial comparing a fixed dose of capecitabine (7/7) with the standard dose (14/7). Although both dosing schedules showed similar overall survival results, the fixed dose was better tolerated.  

Finally, Dr Burstein turns to advances in the use of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), starting with an update from the TROPiCS-02 study comparing sacituzumab govitecan (SG) with standard chemotherapy. The 12.75-month follow-up showed an overall survival benefit when using SG in third- or fourth-line treatment.  

He also highlights phase 2 trial results with another ADC, HER3-DXd (patritumab deruxtecan), which showed significant response rates across a broad range of HER3 expression levels. 

--

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr Harold J. Burstein, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, presents key abstracts on metastatic breast cancer (mBC) from the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting. 

Dr Burstein first highlights results from the SONIA study, which compared endocrine therapy followed by a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the second-line with the use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first line. Although the CDK4/6 inhibitor in first-line improved progression-free survival, overall survival remained unchanged.  

Dr Burstein next discusses results from the CANKADO trial, which randomized patients with mBC to report symptoms via a smartphone app. The app users reported fewer adverse events and better quality of life. 

Dr Burstein reports on the potentially practice-changing results of the X-7/7 trial comparing a fixed dose of capecitabine (7/7) with the standard dose (14/7). Although both dosing schedules showed similar overall survival results, the fixed dose was better tolerated.  

Finally, Dr Burstein turns to advances in the use of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), starting with an update from the TROPiCS-02 study comparing sacituzumab govitecan (SG) with standard chemotherapy. The 12.75-month follow-up showed an overall survival benefit when using SG in third- or fourth-line treatment.  

He also highlights phase 2 trial results with another ADC, HER3-DXd (patritumab deruxtecan), which showed significant response rates across a broad range of HER3 expression levels. 

--

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr Harold J. Burstein, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, presents key abstracts on metastatic breast cancer (mBC) from the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting. 

Dr Burstein first highlights results from the SONIA study, which compared endocrine therapy followed by a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the second-line with the use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first line. Although the CDK4/6 inhibitor in first-line improved progression-free survival, overall survival remained unchanged.  

Dr Burstein next discusses results from the CANKADO trial, which randomized patients with mBC to report symptoms via a smartphone app. The app users reported fewer adverse events and better quality of life. 

Dr Burstein reports on the potentially practice-changing results of the X-7/7 trial comparing a fixed dose of capecitabine (7/7) with the standard dose (14/7). Although both dosing schedules showed similar overall survival results, the fixed dose was better tolerated.  

Finally, Dr Burstein turns to advances in the use of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), starting with an update from the TROPiCS-02 study comparing sacituzumab govitecan (SG) with standard chemotherapy. The 12.75-month follow-up showed an overall survival benefit when using SG in third- or fourth-line treatment.  

He also highlights phase 2 trial results with another ADC, HER3-DXd (patritumab deruxtecan), which showed significant response rates across a broad range of HER3 expression levels. 

--

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Observation should be considered the first-line treatment of choice in appropriately selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients, according to a review comparing observation alone with aspiration or chest tube placement.

Observation was the dominant choice, based on economic modeling showing it to offer both the highest utility and the lowest cost, according to the review, published in CHEST, which encompassed 20 years of relevant publications.

While current guidelines are shifting toward either aspiration or observation and away from recommending chest tube placement, chest tube placement remains quite common in physicians’ clinical practices, Gilgamesh Eamer, MD, MSc, FRCSC, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, and colleagues wrote. They pointed to recent studies suggesting equivalent or improved outcomes with simple observation in appropriately selected patients. The authors asked, “What management strategy derives the most utility for patients given the cost and morbidity of chest tube placement, hospital admission, surgical intervention and the risk of recurrence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.”

Primary spontaneous pneumothorax, which leads to progressive pulmonary collapse and respiratory compromise, is thought to be attributable to rupture of air-containing blisters (or bullae) formed under the visceral pleura of the lung, according to the researchers. They stated that, while prior systematic reviews have examined various primary spontaneous pneumothorax management techniques, no reviews encompass more recently published high-quality studies comparing aspiration to other interventions such as observation or Heimlich valve devices.

The authors identified 22 articles for systematic review and meta-analysis after screening an initial list of 5,179 potentially relevant articles (Jan. 1, 2000 to April 10, 2020). They compared observation, needle aspiration, and chest tube placement, and created an economic model for these three treatment pathways based on Canadian medical cost data. The primary outcome measure was resolution following the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes included primary spontaneous pneumothorax recurrence, length of hospital stay, and treatment complications.

The analysis revealed that, compared with observation, chest tube and aspiration had higher resolution without additional intervention (relative risk for chest tube, 0.81; P < .01; RR for aspiration, 0.73; P < .01). Compared with a chest tube, observation and aspiration had shorter length of stay (mean difference for observation, 5.17; P < .01): (MD for aspiration, 2.72; P < .01).

Two-year recurrence rates did not differ between management strategies. Cost utility modeling found a cost of $14,658 (Canadian dollars [CAD] with 1.2535 = 1 US dollar) for chest tube placement, $13,126 CAD for aspiration, and $6,408 CAD for observation.

The utility (a measure including both quantity and quality of life) for each management arm was 0.77 for CT placement, 0.79 for aspiration, and 0.82 for observation. “The observation arm dominates the other two arms meaning it results in a more desirable (higher) utility with lower cost and results in a negative ICER [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio],” the authors stated.

They observed further that it is not typical for a medical intervention to improve patient outcomes, compared with standard care, and at the same time to bring costs down. “Given this, and the increasing evidence that observation is safe and effective in appropriately selected patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax,” they concluded that “observation should be considered in all patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax who meet predefined criteria.” They added that, because aspiration is favored over chest tube placement, it should be considered second-line therapy in well-selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients presenting with recurrence or who have failed a trial of observation.

“This review sheds light on ‘less is better’ for primary spontaneous pneumothorax management,” commented Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of the department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It allows clinicians to utilize a ‘wait approach’ versus invasive treatment. Interestingly, recurrence was lower in the observation group.” She said further, in an interview, “In general we assume that if no intervention is done, there is higher chance of recurrence. However, this meta-analysis reveals that is not the case; there is no difference in recurrence of pneumothorax in all groups and fewer complications in the observation group. The invasive treatments such as aspiration or chest tube are risky as they have more complications like pain, bleeding, injury to surrounding structures, etc.”

Neither Dr. Eamer nor Dr. Narendra reported any conflicts of interest. The study was self-funded.

Observation should be considered the first-line treatment of choice in appropriately selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients, according to a review comparing observation alone with aspiration or chest tube placement.

Observation was the dominant choice, based on economic modeling showing it to offer both the highest utility and the lowest cost, according to the review, published in CHEST, which encompassed 20 years of relevant publications.

While current guidelines are shifting toward either aspiration or observation and away from recommending chest tube placement, chest tube placement remains quite common in physicians’ clinical practices, Gilgamesh Eamer, MD, MSc, FRCSC, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, and colleagues wrote. They pointed to recent studies suggesting equivalent or improved outcomes with simple observation in appropriately selected patients. The authors asked, “What management strategy derives the most utility for patients given the cost and morbidity of chest tube placement, hospital admission, surgical intervention and the risk of recurrence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.”

Primary spontaneous pneumothorax, which leads to progressive pulmonary collapse and respiratory compromise, is thought to be attributable to rupture of air-containing blisters (or bullae) formed under the visceral pleura of the lung, according to the researchers. They stated that, while prior systematic reviews have examined various primary spontaneous pneumothorax management techniques, no reviews encompass more recently published high-quality studies comparing aspiration to other interventions such as observation or Heimlich valve devices.

The authors identified 22 articles for systematic review and meta-analysis after screening an initial list of 5,179 potentially relevant articles (Jan. 1, 2000 to April 10, 2020). They compared observation, needle aspiration, and chest tube placement, and created an economic model for these three treatment pathways based on Canadian medical cost data. The primary outcome measure was resolution following the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes included primary spontaneous pneumothorax recurrence, length of hospital stay, and treatment complications.

The analysis revealed that, compared with observation, chest tube and aspiration had higher resolution without additional intervention (relative risk for chest tube, 0.81; P < .01; RR for aspiration, 0.73; P < .01). Compared with a chest tube, observation and aspiration had shorter length of stay (mean difference for observation, 5.17; P < .01): (MD for aspiration, 2.72; P < .01).

Two-year recurrence rates did not differ between management strategies. Cost utility modeling found a cost of $14,658 (Canadian dollars [CAD] with 1.2535 = 1 US dollar) for chest tube placement, $13,126 CAD for aspiration, and $6,408 CAD for observation.

The utility (a measure including both quantity and quality of life) for each management arm was 0.77 for CT placement, 0.79 for aspiration, and 0.82 for observation. “The observation arm dominates the other two arms meaning it results in a more desirable (higher) utility with lower cost and results in a negative ICER [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio],” the authors stated.

They observed further that it is not typical for a medical intervention to improve patient outcomes, compared with standard care, and at the same time to bring costs down. “Given this, and the increasing evidence that observation is safe and effective in appropriately selected patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax,” they concluded that “observation should be considered in all patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax who meet predefined criteria.” They added that, because aspiration is favored over chest tube placement, it should be considered second-line therapy in well-selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients presenting with recurrence or who have failed a trial of observation.

“This review sheds light on ‘less is better’ for primary spontaneous pneumothorax management,” commented Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of the department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It allows clinicians to utilize a ‘wait approach’ versus invasive treatment. Interestingly, recurrence was lower in the observation group.” She said further, in an interview, “In general we assume that if no intervention is done, there is higher chance of recurrence. However, this meta-analysis reveals that is not the case; there is no difference in recurrence of pneumothorax in all groups and fewer complications in the observation group. The invasive treatments such as aspiration or chest tube are risky as they have more complications like pain, bleeding, injury to surrounding structures, etc.”

Neither Dr. Eamer nor Dr. Narendra reported any conflicts of interest. The study was self-funded.

Observation should be considered the first-line treatment of choice in appropriately selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients, according to a review comparing observation alone with aspiration or chest tube placement.

Observation was the dominant choice, based on economic modeling showing it to offer both the highest utility and the lowest cost, according to the review, published in CHEST, which encompassed 20 years of relevant publications.

While current guidelines are shifting toward either aspiration or observation and away from recommending chest tube placement, chest tube placement remains quite common in physicians’ clinical practices, Gilgamesh Eamer, MD, MSc, FRCSC, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, and colleagues wrote. They pointed to recent studies suggesting equivalent or improved outcomes with simple observation in appropriately selected patients. The authors asked, “What management strategy derives the most utility for patients given the cost and morbidity of chest tube placement, hospital admission, surgical intervention and the risk of recurrence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.”

Primary spontaneous pneumothorax, which leads to progressive pulmonary collapse and respiratory compromise, is thought to be attributable to rupture of air-containing blisters (or bullae) formed under the visceral pleura of the lung, according to the researchers. They stated that, while prior systematic reviews have examined various primary spontaneous pneumothorax management techniques, no reviews encompass more recently published high-quality studies comparing aspiration to other interventions such as observation or Heimlich valve devices.

The authors identified 22 articles for systematic review and meta-analysis after screening an initial list of 5,179 potentially relevant articles (Jan. 1, 2000 to April 10, 2020). They compared observation, needle aspiration, and chest tube placement, and created an economic model for these three treatment pathways based on Canadian medical cost data. The primary outcome measure was resolution following the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes included primary spontaneous pneumothorax recurrence, length of hospital stay, and treatment complications.

The analysis revealed that, compared with observation, chest tube and aspiration had higher resolution without additional intervention (relative risk for chest tube, 0.81; P < .01; RR for aspiration, 0.73; P < .01). Compared with a chest tube, observation and aspiration had shorter length of stay (mean difference for observation, 5.17; P < .01): (MD for aspiration, 2.72; P < .01).

Two-year recurrence rates did not differ between management strategies. Cost utility modeling found a cost of $14,658 (Canadian dollars [CAD] with 1.2535 = 1 US dollar) for chest tube placement, $13,126 CAD for aspiration, and $6,408 CAD for observation.

The utility (a measure including both quantity and quality of life) for each management arm was 0.77 for CT placement, 0.79 for aspiration, and 0.82 for observation. “The observation arm dominates the other two arms meaning it results in a more desirable (higher) utility with lower cost and results in a negative ICER [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio],” the authors stated.

They observed further that it is not typical for a medical intervention to improve patient outcomes, compared with standard care, and at the same time to bring costs down. “Given this, and the increasing evidence that observation is safe and effective in appropriately selected patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax,” they concluded that “observation should be considered in all patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax who meet predefined criteria.” They added that, because aspiration is favored over chest tube placement, it should be considered second-line therapy in well-selected primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients presenting with recurrence or who have failed a trial of observation.

“This review sheds light on ‘less is better’ for primary spontaneous pneumothorax management,” commented Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of the department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It allows clinicians to utilize a ‘wait approach’ versus invasive treatment. Interestingly, recurrence was lower in the observation group.” She said further, in an interview, “In general we assume that if no intervention is done, there is higher chance of recurrence. However, this meta-analysis reveals that is not the case; there is no difference in recurrence of pneumothorax in all groups and fewer complications in the observation group. The invasive treatments such as aspiration or chest tube are risky as they have more complications like pain, bleeding, injury to surrounding structures, etc.”

Neither Dr. Eamer nor Dr. Narendra reported any conflicts of interest. The study was self-funded.

Prescriptions for desiccated thyroid extract (DTE) to treat newly diagnosed hypothyroidism nearly doubled between 2010 and 2020 in the United States, while prescribing of first-line levothyroxine monotherapy dropped, new research has found.

Nationwide MarketScan claims data reveal that, among first-time thyroid hormone prescriptions, those for DTE rose from 5.4% in 2010 to 10.2% in 2020. At the same time, prescriptions for first-line levothyroxine dropped from 91.8% to 87.2%. Prescriptions for liothyronine (LT3), primarily in combination with levothyroxine, remained at about 2% throughout the decade.

The nonlevothyroxine therapies were more commonly prescribed in the West and Southwestern United States, while levothyroxine monotherapy was more frequent in the Northwest and upper Midwest, and also in states with higher densities of primary care physicians and endocrinologists.

The magnitude of this shift in first-line treatment was unexpected.

“We were frankly quite surprised to see that difference in just 10 years,” lead author Matthew Ettleson, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elizabeth N. Pearce, MD, professor of medicine at Boston University Medical Center, said she also found the dramatic shift to DTE surprising.

“It’s unclear why since there hasn’t been a shift in the science or in the guidelines over the last decade. ... I think we need to understand better what is driving this, who the patients are who are seeking it out, and which providers are the primary drivers of these prescriptions,” she said.

Dr. Ettleson presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The results were simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
 

Why the increase in desiccated thyroid extract?

Current guidelines by the American Thyroid Association recommend levothyroxine, a synthetic form of thyroxine (T4) monotherapy, as the standard of care for treating hypothyroidism. However, approximately 10%-20% of levothyroxine-treated patients report bothersome symptoms despite normalization of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels.

In 2021, the ATA, along with European and British thyroid societies, issued a consensus statement noting that new trials of triiodothyronine (T3)/T4 combination therapy were “justified.”

However, the MarketScan data were gathered before that statement came out, which doesn’t mention desiccated thyroid extract, “so that’s a bit of a head-scratcher,” Ettleson said.

He said one possibility may be the existence of online materials saying negative things about levothyroxine, so that “people who are just learning about hypothyroidism might already be primed to think about alternative treatments.” Moreover, some patients may view DTE as more “natural” than levothyroxine.

Dr. Ettleson also noted that the distinct geographic variation “didn’t seem random. ... So not only was there a doubling overall but there’s a variation in practice patterns across the country. I don’t have an explanation for that, but I think it’s important to recognize in the medical community that there are these big differences.”
 

Endocrinologists not as keen to prescribe DTE or T3

Residence in a state with higher endocrinologist density (3.0/100,000 population) was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving T3 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 0.18; P < .001).

Residence in large central metro zones was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving T3 (aOR, 1.32; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 1.05; P < .008, respectively).

Dr. Pearce observed: “I don’t see DTE in Boston. It’s mostly in the South and Southwest.”

She said she doubted that endocrinologists were the primary prescribers of DTE, as many endocrinologists are “wary” of the pig thyroid–derived product because its T4 to T3 ratio is about 4:1, in contrast to the ratio in humans of 13-14:1.

Thus, DTE contains a much higher proportion of the active hormone T3. It is also much shorter acting, with a half-life of a few hours, compared to a few days for T4, she explained.

“We don’t really know what long-term safety effects are but it’s probably a less physiologic way of dosing thyroid hormone than ... either levothyroxine or levothyroxine in combination with a lower T3 proportion,” she said.
 

Just trying to understand

Dr. Ettleson emphasized that the goal of his research wasn’t to reverse the trend but to better understand it.

Nonetheless, he also noted, “now that we know there are more patients taking DTE, we need to start looking at rates of atrial fibrillation, fracture, heart failure, and other possible outcomes in this population and compare them with levothyroxine and nonthyroid populations to make sure that it is as safe as levothyroxine.”

“There are no data to suggest increased risk, especially if TSH is monitored and stays in the normal range, but there’s very little data for over 5 or 10 years on DTE-treated patients. We need the data,” he emphasized.

Meanwhile, he’s working on a survey of endocrinologists and non-endocrinologists to ask if they’ve prescribed DTE, and if so, why, and whether it’s because patients asked for it. “There’s a lot more work to be done, but I think it’s exciting. It’s important to see how patients are being treated in the real world ... and understand why it’s happening and what the outcomes are.”

Dr. Ettleson and Dr. Pearce have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prescriptions for desiccated thyroid extract (DTE) to treat newly diagnosed hypothyroidism nearly doubled between 2010 and 2020 in the United States, while prescribing of first-line levothyroxine monotherapy dropped, new research has found.

Nationwide MarketScan claims data reveal that, among first-time thyroid hormone prescriptions, those for DTE rose from 5.4% in 2010 to 10.2% in 2020. At the same time, prescriptions for first-line levothyroxine dropped from 91.8% to 87.2%. Prescriptions for liothyronine (LT3), primarily in combination with levothyroxine, remained at about 2% throughout the decade.

The nonlevothyroxine therapies were more commonly prescribed in the West and Southwestern United States, while levothyroxine monotherapy was more frequent in the Northwest and upper Midwest, and also in states with higher densities of primary care physicians and endocrinologists.

The magnitude of this shift in first-line treatment was unexpected.

“We were frankly quite surprised to see that difference in just 10 years,” lead author Matthew Ettleson, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elizabeth N. Pearce, MD, professor of medicine at Boston University Medical Center, said she also found the dramatic shift to DTE surprising.

“It’s unclear why since there hasn’t been a shift in the science or in the guidelines over the last decade. ... I think we need to understand better what is driving this, who the patients are who are seeking it out, and which providers are the primary drivers of these prescriptions,” she said.

Dr. Ettleson presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The results were simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
 

Why the increase in desiccated thyroid extract?

Current guidelines by the American Thyroid Association recommend levothyroxine, a synthetic form of thyroxine (T4) monotherapy, as the standard of care for treating hypothyroidism. However, approximately 10%-20% of levothyroxine-treated patients report bothersome symptoms despite normalization of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels.

In 2021, the ATA, along with European and British thyroid societies, issued a consensus statement noting that new trials of triiodothyronine (T3)/T4 combination therapy were “justified.”

However, the MarketScan data were gathered before that statement came out, which doesn’t mention desiccated thyroid extract, “so that’s a bit of a head-scratcher,” Ettleson said.

He said one possibility may be the existence of online materials saying negative things about levothyroxine, so that “people who are just learning about hypothyroidism might already be primed to think about alternative treatments.” Moreover, some patients may view DTE as more “natural” than levothyroxine.

Dr. Ettleson also noted that the distinct geographic variation “didn’t seem random. ... So not only was there a doubling overall but there’s a variation in practice patterns across the country. I don’t have an explanation for that, but I think it’s important to recognize in the medical community that there are these big differences.”
 

Endocrinologists not as keen to prescribe DTE or T3

Residence in a state with higher endocrinologist density (3.0/100,000 population) was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving T3 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 0.18; P < .001).

Residence in large central metro zones was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving T3 (aOR, 1.32; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 1.05; P < .008, respectively).

Dr. Pearce observed: “I don’t see DTE in Boston. It’s mostly in the South and Southwest.”

She said she doubted that endocrinologists were the primary prescribers of DTE, as many endocrinologists are “wary” of the pig thyroid–derived product because its T4 to T3 ratio is about 4:1, in contrast to the ratio in humans of 13-14:1.

Thus, DTE contains a much higher proportion of the active hormone T3. It is also much shorter acting, with a half-life of a few hours, compared to a few days for T4, she explained.

“We don’t really know what long-term safety effects are but it’s probably a less physiologic way of dosing thyroid hormone than ... either levothyroxine or levothyroxine in combination with a lower T3 proportion,” she said.
 

Just trying to understand

Dr. Ettleson emphasized that the goal of his research wasn’t to reverse the trend but to better understand it.

Nonetheless, he also noted, “now that we know there are more patients taking DTE, we need to start looking at rates of atrial fibrillation, fracture, heart failure, and other possible outcomes in this population and compare them with levothyroxine and nonthyroid populations to make sure that it is as safe as levothyroxine.”

“There are no data to suggest increased risk, especially if TSH is monitored and stays in the normal range, but there’s very little data for over 5 or 10 years on DTE-treated patients. We need the data,” he emphasized.

Meanwhile, he’s working on a survey of endocrinologists and non-endocrinologists to ask if they’ve prescribed DTE, and if so, why, and whether it’s because patients asked for it. “There’s a lot more work to be done, but I think it’s exciting. It’s important to see how patients are being treated in the real world ... and understand why it’s happening and what the outcomes are.”

Dr. Ettleson and Dr. Pearce have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prescriptions for desiccated thyroid extract (DTE) to treat newly diagnosed hypothyroidism nearly doubled between 2010 and 2020 in the United States, while prescribing of first-line levothyroxine monotherapy dropped, new research has found.

Nationwide MarketScan claims data reveal that, among first-time thyroid hormone prescriptions, those for DTE rose from 5.4% in 2010 to 10.2% in 2020. At the same time, prescriptions for first-line levothyroxine dropped from 91.8% to 87.2%. Prescriptions for liothyronine (LT3), primarily in combination with levothyroxine, remained at about 2% throughout the decade.

The nonlevothyroxine therapies were more commonly prescribed in the West and Southwestern United States, while levothyroxine monotherapy was more frequent in the Northwest and upper Midwest, and also in states with higher densities of primary care physicians and endocrinologists.

The magnitude of this shift in first-line treatment was unexpected.

“We were frankly quite surprised to see that difference in just 10 years,” lead author Matthew Ettleson, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elizabeth N. Pearce, MD, professor of medicine at Boston University Medical Center, said she also found the dramatic shift to DTE surprising.

“It’s unclear why since there hasn’t been a shift in the science or in the guidelines over the last decade. ... I think we need to understand better what is driving this, who the patients are who are seeking it out, and which providers are the primary drivers of these prescriptions,” she said.

Dr. Ettleson presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The results were simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
 

Why the increase in desiccated thyroid extract?

Current guidelines by the American Thyroid Association recommend levothyroxine, a synthetic form of thyroxine (T4) monotherapy, as the standard of care for treating hypothyroidism. However, approximately 10%-20% of levothyroxine-treated patients report bothersome symptoms despite normalization of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels.

In 2021, the ATA, along with European and British thyroid societies, issued a consensus statement noting that new trials of triiodothyronine (T3)/T4 combination therapy were “justified.”

However, the MarketScan data were gathered before that statement came out, which doesn’t mention desiccated thyroid extract, “so that’s a bit of a head-scratcher,” Ettleson said.

He said one possibility may be the existence of online materials saying negative things about levothyroxine, so that “people who are just learning about hypothyroidism might already be primed to think about alternative treatments.” Moreover, some patients may view DTE as more “natural” than levothyroxine.

Dr. Ettleson also noted that the distinct geographic variation “didn’t seem random. ... So not only was there a doubling overall but there’s a variation in practice patterns across the country. I don’t have an explanation for that, but I think it’s important to recognize in the medical community that there are these big differences.”
 

Endocrinologists not as keen to prescribe DTE or T3

Residence in a state with higher endocrinologist density (3.0/100,000 population) was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving T3 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 0.18; P < .001).

Residence in large central metro zones was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving T3 (aOR, 1.32; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 1.05; P < .008, respectively).

Dr. Pearce observed: “I don’t see DTE in Boston. It’s mostly in the South and Southwest.”

She said she doubted that endocrinologists were the primary prescribers of DTE, as many endocrinologists are “wary” of the pig thyroid–derived product because its T4 to T3 ratio is about 4:1, in contrast to the ratio in humans of 13-14:1.

Thus, DTE contains a much higher proportion of the active hormone T3. It is also much shorter acting, with a half-life of a few hours, compared to a few days for T4, she explained.

“We don’t really know what long-term safety effects are but it’s probably a less physiologic way of dosing thyroid hormone than ... either levothyroxine or levothyroxine in combination with a lower T3 proportion,” she said.
 

Just trying to understand

Dr. Ettleson emphasized that the goal of his research wasn’t to reverse the trend but to better understand it.

Nonetheless, he also noted, “now that we know there are more patients taking DTE, we need to start looking at rates of atrial fibrillation, fracture, heart failure, and other possible outcomes in this population and compare them with levothyroxine and nonthyroid populations to make sure that it is as safe as levothyroxine.”

“There are no data to suggest increased risk, especially if TSH is monitored and stays in the normal range, but there’s very little data for over 5 or 10 years on DTE-treated patients. We need the data,” he emphasized.

Meanwhile, he’s working on a survey of endocrinologists and non-endocrinologists to ask if they’ve prescribed DTE, and if so, why, and whether it’s because patients asked for it. “There’s a lot more work to be done, but I think it’s exciting. It’s important to see how patients are being treated in the real world ... and understand why it’s happening and what the outcomes are.”

Dr. Ettleson and Dr. Pearce have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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