Research offers promising insights into the ideal frontline therapies for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), but there are continued unmet needs in the relapsed/refractory setting, blood cancer specialists told colleagues. 

In the frontline setting, findings suggest that regimens should differ significantly on the basis of whether patients are older or younger, whereas more data are needed to understand whether treatment can overcome poor prognoses in patients with TP53 mutations, lymphoma specialist Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) 2024 in Houston, Texas.

On the relapsed/refractory front, patients need better options after treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, Krish Patel, MD, a lymphoma specialist with Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, said in an adjoining presentation. Fortunately, he said, some treatments are showing early promise.

Here’s a closer look at the presentations by Dr. Wagner-Johnston and Dr. Patel.
 

Frontline MCL: Age Helps Determine Best Approach

“For older and less fit patients, the standard approach has typically been bendamustine (Bendeka, Treanda) and rituximab (Rituxan), and the median progression-free survival is about 4 years, with overall survival not reached at a median 5 years of follow-up,” Dr. Wagner-Johnston said. 

Low doses of the chemotherapy drug cytarabine have been added to the bendamustine-rituximab regimen, with encouraging results, she said. “Certainly there’s more toxicity associated even with lower doses, but those data look fairly promising.”

For younger and fit patients, “the standard of care approach has been to administer intensive chemoimmunotherapy that contains high-dose cytarabine, and then that’s typically followed with an autologous stem cell transplant,” she said. A 2016 study reported median progression-free survival of 8.5 years and median overall survival of 12.7 years.

Now, second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “look very promising” in the frontline setting, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said.

The road has been rocky, however. The SHINE trial of more than 500 patients aged over 65 found that adding ibrutinib to bendamustine-rituximab improved progression-free survival. “However, progression-free survival did not [connect] to an overall survival benefit, and that’s likely due to the toxicity seen with ibrutinib,” she said. 

“It’s not surprising to many of you that ibrutinib has been removed from the FDA label for mantle cell lymphoma,” she said. However, “second-generation [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] are known to be associated with less toxicity and potentially increased potency.”

What about Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in younger and fitter patients? The TRIANGLE trial demonstrated their benefit, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said, linking ibrutinib to improvement in progression-free survival. 

However, “it’s really too early to evaluate the statistical significance for overall survival.” And while the study looks at therapy without stem cell transplant, she believes it’s too early to know whether that’s a good option. 

Dr. Wagner-Johnston tackled another topic: Can Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors overcome the poor prognosis seen with MCL with TP53 mutation? For now, the limitations of research makes it “hard to know,” she said, although early results of the BOVen trial are promising. 
 

Relapsed/Refractory MCL: Better Options Are Still Needed

In his presentation, Dr. Patel spoke about therapy in patients with MCL and relapsed/refractory disease. “We know that outcomes for patients who progress on covalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] is really dismal,” he said. “This has been shown by multiple groups now across the globe.”

Noncovalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors are now an option, he noted. “We do understand that they work for some patients, and it can be quite useful, but even noncovalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] themselves are susceptible to resistance mutations. We’ve seen that in the [chronic lymphocytic leukemia] world.”

Dr. Patel asked the audience, “Why not just give everybody CAR T-cells, post-[Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors]? You get a CAR T-cell! You get a CAR T-cell! Everybody gets one.”

However, he noted, “Unfortunately, mantle cell lymphoma patients experience the worst high-grade toxicity when receiving CD19[-targeted] CAR T-cells.” 

Are there better options? At the moment, “really, really early data” suggest benefits from molecular glues and degraders, novel inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, novel CAR T-cells, and bispecific antibodies, Dr. Patel said.

“All of these tools are in clinical trials, and hopefully some of them will help,” he said.

Disclosures were not provided. Dr. Wagner-Johnston recently disclosed advisory committee/board of directors’ relationships with ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, Calibr, and Verastem. Dr. Patel recently disclosed ties with a long list of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and others.
 

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

Research offers promising insights into the ideal frontline therapies for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), but there are continued unmet needs in the relapsed/refractory setting, blood cancer specialists told colleagues. 

In the frontline setting, findings suggest that regimens should differ significantly on the basis of whether patients are older or younger, whereas more data are needed to understand whether treatment can overcome poor prognoses in patients with TP53 mutations, lymphoma specialist Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) 2024 in Houston, Texas.

On the relapsed/refractory front, patients need better options after treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, Krish Patel, MD, a lymphoma specialist with Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, said in an adjoining presentation. Fortunately, he said, some treatments are showing early promise.

Here’s a closer look at the presentations by Dr. Wagner-Johnston and Dr. Patel.
 

Frontline MCL: Age Helps Determine Best Approach

“For older and less fit patients, the standard approach has typically been bendamustine (Bendeka, Treanda) and rituximab (Rituxan), and the median progression-free survival is about 4 years, with overall survival not reached at a median 5 years of follow-up,” Dr. Wagner-Johnston said. 

Low doses of the chemotherapy drug cytarabine have been added to the bendamustine-rituximab regimen, with encouraging results, she said. “Certainly there’s more toxicity associated even with lower doses, but those data look fairly promising.”

For younger and fit patients, “the standard of care approach has been to administer intensive chemoimmunotherapy that contains high-dose cytarabine, and then that’s typically followed with an autologous stem cell transplant,” she said. A 2016 study reported median progression-free survival of 8.5 years and median overall survival of 12.7 years.

Now, second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “look very promising” in the frontline setting, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said.

The road has been rocky, however. The SHINE trial of more than 500 patients aged over 65 found that adding ibrutinib to bendamustine-rituximab improved progression-free survival. “However, progression-free survival did not [connect] to an overall survival benefit, and that’s likely due to the toxicity seen with ibrutinib,” she said. 

“It’s not surprising to many of you that ibrutinib has been removed from the FDA label for mantle cell lymphoma,” she said. However, “second-generation [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] are known to be associated with less toxicity and potentially increased potency.”

What about Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in younger and fitter patients? The TRIANGLE trial demonstrated their benefit, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said, linking ibrutinib to improvement in progression-free survival. 

However, “it’s really too early to evaluate the statistical significance for overall survival.” And while the study looks at therapy without stem cell transplant, she believes it’s too early to know whether that’s a good option. 

Dr. Wagner-Johnston tackled another topic: Can Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors overcome the poor prognosis seen with MCL with TP53 mutation? For now, the limitations of research makes it “hard to know,” she said, although early results of the BOVen trial are promising. 
 

Relapsed/Refractory MCL: Better Options Are Still Needed

In his presentation, Dr. Patel spoke about therapy in patients with MCL and relapsed/refractory disease. “We know that outcomes for patients who progress on covalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] is really dismal,” he said. “This has been shown by multiple groups now across the globe.”

Noncovalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors are now an option, he noted. “We do understand that they work for some patients, and it can be quite useful, but even noncovalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] themselves are susceptible to resistance mutations. We’ve seen that in the [chronic lymphocytic leukemia] world.”

Dr. Patel asked the audience, “Why not just give everybody CAR T-cells, post-[Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors]? You get a CAR T-cell! You get a CAR T-cell! Everybody gets one.”

However, he noted, “Unfortunately, mantle cell lymphoma patients experience the worst high-grade toxicity when receiving CD19[-targeted] CAR T-cells.” 

Are there better options? At the moment, “really, really early data” suggest benefits from molecular glues and degraders, novel inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, novel CAR T-cells, and bispecific antibodies, Dr. Patel said.

“All of these tools are in clinical trials, and hopefully some of them will help,” he said.

Disclosures were not provided. Dr. Wagner-Johnston recently disclosed advisory committee/board of directors’ relationships with ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, Calibr, and Verastem. Dr. Patel recently disclosed ties with a long list of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and others.
 

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

Research offers promising insights into the ideal frontline therapies for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), but there are continued unmet needs in the relapsed/refractory setting, blood cancer specialists told colleagues. 

In the frontline setting, findings suggest that regimens should differ significantly on the basis of whether patients are older or younger, whereas more data are needed to understand whether treatment can overcome poor prognoses in patients with TP53 mutations, lymphoma specialist Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) 2024 in Houston, Texas.

On the relapsed/refractory front, patients need better options after treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, Krish Patel, MD, a lymphoma specialist with Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, said in an adjoining presentation. Fortunately, he said, some treatments are showing early promise.

Here’s a closer look at the presentations by Dr. Wagner-Johnston and Dr. Patel.
 

Frontline MCL: Age Helps Determine Best Approach

“For older and less fit patients, the standard approach has typically been bendamustine (Bendeka, Treanda) and rituximab (Rituxan), and the median progression-free survival is about 4 years, with overall survival not reached at a median 5 years of follow-up,” Dr. Wagner-Johnston said. 

Low doses of the chemotherapy drug cytarabine have been added to the bendamustine-rituximab regimen, with encouraging results, she said. “Certainly there’s more toxicity associated even with lower doses, but those data look fairly promising.”

For younger and fit patients, “the standard of care approach has been to administer intensive chemoimmunotherapy that contains high-dose cytarabine, and then that’s typically followed with an autologous stem cell transplant,” she said. A 2016 study reported median progression-free survival of 8.5 years and median overall survival of 12.7 years.

Now, second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “look very promising” in the frontline setting, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said.

The road has been rocky, however. The SHINE trial of more than 500 patients aged over 65 found that adding ibrutinib to bendamustine-rituximab improved progression-free survival. “However, progression-free survival did not [connect] to an overall survival benefit, and that’s likely due to the toxicity seen with ibrutinib,” she said. 

“It’s not surprising to many of you that ibrutinib has been removed from the FDA label for mantle cell lymphoma,” she said. However, “second-generation [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] are known to be associated with less toxicity and potentially increased potency.”

What about Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in younger and fitter patients? The TRIANGLE trial demonstrated their benefit, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said, linking ibrutinib to improvement in progression-free survival. 

However, “it’s really too early to evaluate the statistical significance for overall survival.” And while the study looks at therapy without stem cell transplant, she believes it’s too early to know whether that’s a good option. 

Dr. Wagner-Johnston tackled another topic: Can Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors overcome the poor prognosis seen with MCL with TP53 mutation? For now, the limitations of research makes it “hard to know,” she said, although early results of the BOVen trial are promising. 
 

Relapsed/Refractory MCL: Better Options Are Still Needed

In his presentation, Dr. Patel spoke about therapy in patients with MCL and relapsed/refractory disease. “We know that outcomes for patients who progress on covalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] is really dismal,” he said. “This has been shown by multiple groups now across the globe.”

Noncovalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors are now an option, he noted. “We do understand that they work for some patients, and it can be quite useful, but even noncovalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] themselves are susceptible to resistance mutations. We’ve seen that in the [chronic lymphocytic leukemia] world.”

Dr. Patel asked the audience, “Why not just give everybody CAR T-cells, post-[Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors]? You get a CAR T-cell! You get a CAR T-cell! Everybody gets one.”

However, he noted, “Unfortunately, mantle cell lymphoma patients experience the worst high-grade toxicity when receiving CD19[-targeted] CAR T-cells.” 

Are there better options? At the moment, “really, really early data” suggest benefits from molecular glues and degraders, novel inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, novel CAR T-cells, and bispecific antibodies, Dr. Patel said.

“All of these tools are in clinical trials, and hopefully some of them will help,” he said.

Disclosures were not provided. Dr. Wagner-Johnston recently disclosed advisory committee/board of directors’ relationships with ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, Calibr, and Verastem. Dr. Patel recently disclosed ties with a long list of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and others.
 

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a game changer for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but questions remain as to how — and when — the immunotherapy will best be used for patients who experience disease relapse.

Will CAR T be best used in early relapse? Experts debated this question at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology. Based on attendees’ votes, at least one side of the debate emerged victorious.

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, came out swinging with earnest support for using CAR T in early relapse. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, argued in favor of being “a little more circumspect.”
 

Dr. Patel: Yes, Earlier Is Better

A pre-debate audience poll leaned Dr. Patel’s way, with about 59% of 73 votes favoring CAR T in early relapse, 33% favoring reserving CAR T for patients who relapse after three or more lines of therapy, and 8% undecided.

“CAR T is not just a drug — it’s an actual therapy that takes a lot of logistics, as well as bridging therapy and all these other things to take into account,” said Dr. Patel. “And again, when I can go earlier, I have control over some of this.”

Furthermore, randomized phase 3 data from the KarMMA-3 study and the CARTITUDE-4 study showed that multiple standard therapies were not as good as CAR T in the early relapse setting, she said, pointing to the respective hazard ratios for disease progression or death with CAR T vs standard therapies of 0.49 and 0.26.

CARTITUDE-4 also suggested that manufacturing failures are more likely in later relapse — when time is already of greater essence, she said, noting that it can take an additional 3 months when restarting the process.

When it comes to toxicity, yes, it is a concern, she said.

“But we know how to decrease toxicity,” she stressed. “And again, with our second- and third-line approaches, we actually have better therapies to give for bridging.”

Quality of life is another important consideration, Dr. Patel said, noting only CAR T offers a “one-and-done” therapy that helps patients “truly feel better.”

“They’re not having to come into hospitals as often, and this is not just for months; it’s for years,” she said. “To be able to give that to somebody is huge, and again, we have objective data that show that compared to our standard of care therapies, patients do better in almost every realm of quality of life metrics.”

Dr. Patel also pointed to recent data from a retrospective study showing that for bridging therapy, less is more when disease is controlled, and in the early-line setting, more and safer options are available for reducing tumor burden.

Early CAR T is better for older or frail patients as well, she argued, noting that these patients don’t have time to wait, and a new study demonstrates that they tend to do well with CAR T in the early relapse setting.

The choice for early CAR T is clear in patients with high-risk disease, but Dr. Patel stressed that it shouldn’t be reserved for those patients, asking, “When has anything worked well for patients with high-risk disease and not [also] better for standard-risk patients?”

“And why give only 20%-25% of your patients [who actually reach fifth-line treatment] access to something that we know has really revolutionized myeloma therapy?” she said.

Many patients don’t have access, and that’s an issue, she acknowledged, adding: “But for those who do, we really should be giving it to them as soon as possible.”
 

Dr. Usmani: Reserve CAR T for Later Relapse

Not so fast, said Dr. Usmani. “All of these therapies are doing wonders for our patients, and we believe in them, but we have to be a little circumspect in looking at this data more closely and not just with emotions,” he added, noting that many options exist for patients in a first or second relapse, and new options are emerging.

There is also a “harsh reality” in terms of CAR T availability, he noted, explaining that, in 2021, about 180,000 people were living with MM, and about two thirds of those had relapsed disease. Meanwhile, fewer than 1000 CAR T products have been delivered each year for patients with relapsed MM since they were approved in this setting in the United States.

“So, it’s a pipe dream, seriously, that we will be able to utilize CAR T for all patients in early relapsed disease,” he said, adding that capacity will remain an issue because of limited resources.

The existing data, including from KarMMa-3 and CARTITUDE-4, show little potential for long-term benefit with early vs later CAR T.

“There is no plateau,” he said of the survival curves in KarMMa-3, underscoring the lack of a difference in overall survival benefit based on CAR T timing.

The CARTITUDE-4 curves “look great,” and it may be that a “small plateau emerges,” but they don’t demonstrate a benefit of earlier vs later CAR T, he said.

As Dr. Patel noted, there are few treatment options for patients with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and immunomodulatory drug resistance at first relapse. However, that situation will soon change, Dr. Usmani stated.

“Guess what? Belamaf is coming to the rescue!” he said of the off-the-shelf and more accessible B-cell maturation antigen-targeted antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, which has recently been evaluated in the DREAMM 7 and DREAMM 8 trials.

DREAMM 7 demonstrated improved survival vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in the relapsed/refractory MM setting when used in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. DREAMM 8 shows similar benefit with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone vs pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

“Belamaf combinations in the one to three lines [of prior therapy] setting look really good,” he said, noting a particular benefit for progression-free survival and a trend toward improved overall survival.

Considering these factors, as well as the risk for cytopenias and the subsequent risk for infection in most patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy and the known potential risk for secondary malignancies, Dr. Usmani said that he will remain “in the camp of being really careful in selecting CAR T patients for early relapse” until more is known about the risks.

“CAR T for all is not the answer. I think we have to be careful in picking CAR T patients; it’s not a zero-sum game here,” he said, stressing that “there are too many unknowns with the use of early CAR T therapy.”

“It makes sense in some, but not for everyone,” he said, emphasizing the importance of including patients in the discussion.

“The great thing is we have all these options for our patients,” he said.

Dr. Usmani persuaded at least a few colleagues: The final vote showed 42% of 124 voters supported early CAR T, compared with 52% who supported CAR T after three or more lines of therapy and 6% who remained undecided.

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a game changer for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but questions remain as to how — and when — the immunotherapy will best be used for patients who experience disease relapse.

Will CAR T be best used in early relapse? Experts debated this question at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology. Based on attendees’ votes, at least one side of the debate emerged victorious.

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, came out swinging with earnest support for using CAR T in early relapse. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, argued in favor of being “a little more circumspect.”
 

Dr. Patel: Yes, Earlier Is Better

A pre-debate audience poll leaned Dr. Patel’s way, with about 59% of 73 votes favoring CAR T in early relapse, 33% favoring reserving CAR T for patients who relapse after three or more lines of therapy, and 8% undecided.

“CAR T is not just a drug — it’s an actual therapy that takes a lot of logistics, as well as bridging therapy and all these other things to take into account,” said Dr. Patel. “And again, when I can go earlier, I have control over some of this.”

Furthermore, randomized phase 3 data from the KarMMA-3 study and the CARTITUDE-4 study showed that multiple standard therapies were not as good as CAR T in the early relapse setting, she said, pointing to the respective hazard ratios for disease progression or death with CAR T vs standard therapies of 0.49 and 0.26.

CARTITUDE-4 also suggested that manufacturing failures are more likely in later relapse — when time is already of greater essence, she said, noting that it can take an additional 3 months when restarting the process.

When it comes to toxicity, yes, it is a concern, she said.

“But we know how to decrease toxicity,” she stressed. “And again, with our second- and third-line approaches, we actually have better therapies to give for bridging.”

Quality of life is another important consideration, Dr. Patel said, noting only CAR T offers a “one-and-done” therapy that helps patients “truly feel better.”

“They’re not having to come into hospitals as often, and this is not just for months; it’s for years,” she said. “To be able to give that to somebody is huge, and again, we have objective data that show that compared to our standard of care therapies, patients do better in almost every realm of quality of life metrics.”

Dr. Patel also pointed to recent data from a retrospective study showing that for bridging therapy, less is more when disease is controlled, and in the early-line setting, more and safer options are available for reducing tumor burden.

Early CAR T is better for older or frail patients as well, she argued, noting that these patients don’t have time to wait, and a new study demonstrates that they tend to do well with CAR T in the early relapse setting.

The choice for early CAR T is clear in patients with high-risk disease, but Dr. Patel stressed that it shouldn’t be reserved for those patients, asking, “When has anything worked well for patients with high-risk disease and not [also] better for standard-risk patients?”

“And why give only 20%-25% of your patients [who actually reach fifth-line treatment] access to something that we know has really revolutionized myeloma therapy?” she said.

Many patients don’t have access, and that’s an issue, she acknowledged, adding: “But for those who do, we really should be giving it to them as soon as possible.”
 

Dr. Usmani: Reserve CAR T for Later Relapse

Not so fast, said Dr. Usmani. “All of these therapies are doing wonders for our patients, and we believe in them, but we have to be a little circumspect in looking at this data more closely and not just with emotions,” he added, noting that many options exist for patients in a first or second relapse, and new options are emerging.

There is also a “harsh reality” in terms of CAR T availability, he noted, explaining that, in 2021, about 180,000 people were living with MM, and about two thirds of those had relapsed disease. Meanwhile, fewer than 1000 CAR T products have been delivered each year for patients with relapsed MM since they were approved in this setting in the United States.

“So, it’s a pipe dream, seriously, that we will be able to utilize CAR T for all patients in early relapsed disease,” he said, adding that capacity will remain an issue because of limited resources.

The existing data, including from KarMMa-3 and CARTITUDE-4, show little potential for long-term benefit with early vs later CAR T.

“There is no plateau,” he said of the survival curves in KarMMa-3, underscoring the lack of a difference in overall survival benefit based on CAR T timing.

The CARTITUDE-4 curves “look great,” and it may be that a “small plateau emerges,” but they don’t demonstrate a benefit of earlier vs later CAR T, he said.

As Dr. Patel noted, there are few treatment options for patients with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and immunomodulatory drug resistance at first relapse. However, that situation will soon change, Dr. Usmani stated.

“Guess what? Belamaf is coming to the rescue!” he said of the off-the-shelf and more accessible B-cell maturation antigen-targeted antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, which has recently been evaluated in the DREAMM 7 and DREAMM 8 trials.

DREAMM 7 demonstrated improved survival vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in the relapsed/refractory MM setting when used in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. DREAMM 8 shows similar benefit with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone vs pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

“Belamaf combinations in the one to three lines [of prior therapy] setting look really good,” he said, noting a particular benefit for progression-free survival and a trend toward improved overall survival.

Considering these factors, as well as the risk for cytopenias and the subsequent risk for infection in most patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy and the known potential risk for secondary malignancies, Dr. Usmani said that he will remain “in the camp of being really careful in selecting CAR T patients for early relapse” until more is known about the risks.

“CAR T for all is not the answer. I think we have to be careful in picking CAR T patients; it’s not a zero-sum game here,” he said, stressing that “there are too many unknowns with the use of early CAR T therapy.”

“It makes sense in some, but not for everyone,” he said, emphasizing the importance of including patients in the discussion.

“The great thing is we have all these options for our patients,” he said.

Dr. Usmani persuaded at least a few colleagues: The final vote showed 42% of 124 voters supported early CAR T, compared with 52% who supported CAR T after three or more lines of therapy and 6% who remained undecided.

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a game changer for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but questions remain as to how — and when — the immunotherapy will best be used for patients who experience disease relapse.

Will CAR T be best used in early relapse? Experts debated this question at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology. Based on attendees’ votes, at least one side of the debate emerged victorious.

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, came out swinging with earnest support for using CAR T in early relapse. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, argued in favor of being “a little more circumspect.”
 

Dr. Patel: Yes, Earlier Is Better

A pre-debate audience poll leaned Dr. Patel’s way, with about 59% of 73 votes favoring CAR T in early relapse, 33% favoring reserving CAR T for patients who relapse after three or more lines of therapy, and 8% undecided.

“CAR T is not just a drug — it’s an actual therapy that takes a lot of logistics, as well as bridging therapy and all these other things to take into account,” said Dr. Patel. “And again, when I can go earlier, I have control over some of this.”

Furthermore, randomized phase 3 data from the KarMMA-3 study and the CARTITUDE-4 study showed that multiple standard therapies were not as good as CAR T in the early relapse setting, she said, pointing to the respective hazard ratios for disease progression or death with CAR T vs standard therapies of 0.49 and 0.26.

CARTITUDE-4 also suggested that manufacturing failures are more likely in later relapse — when time is already of greater essence, she said, noting that it can take an additional 3 months when restarting the process.

When it comes to toxicity, yes, it is a concern, she said.

“But we know how to decrease toxicity,” she stressed. “And again, with our second- and third-line approaches, we actually have better therapies to give for bridging.”

Quality of life is another important consideration, Dr. Patel said, noting only CAR T offers a “one-and-done” therapy that helps patients “truly feel better.”

“They’re not having to come into hospitals as often, and this is not just for months; it’s for years,” she said. “To be able to give that to somebody is huge, and again, we have objective data that show that compared to our standard of care therapies, patients do better in almost every realm of quality of life metrics.”

Dr. Patel also pointed to recent data from a retrospective study showing that for bridging therapy, less is more when disease is controlled, and in the early-line setting, more and safer options are available for reducing tumor burden.

Early CAR T is better for older or frail patients as well, she argued, noting that these patients don’t have time to wait, and a new study demonstrates that they tend to do well with CAR T in the early relapse setting.

The choice for early CAR T is clear in patients with high-risk disease, but Dr. Patel stressed that it shouldn’t be reserved for those patients, asking, “When has anything worked well for patients with high-risk disease and not [also] better for standard-risk patients?”

“And why give only 20%-25% of your patients [who actually reach fifth-line treatment] access to something that we know has really revolutionized myeloma therapy?” she said.

Many patients don’t have access, and that’s an issue, she acknowledged, adding: “But for those who do, we really should be giving it to them as soon as possible.”
 

Dr. Usmani: Reserve CAR T for Later Relapse

Not so fast, said Dr. Usmani. “All of these therapies are doing wonders for our patients, and we believe in them, but we have to be a little circumspect in looking at this data more closely and not just with emotions,” he added, noting that many options exist for patients in a first or second relapse, and new options are emerging.

There is also a “harsh reality” in terms of CAR T availability, he noted, explaining that, in 2021, about 180,000 people were living with MM, and about two thirds of those had relapsed disease. Meanwhile, fewer than 1000 CAR T products have been delivered each year for patients with relapsed MM since they were approved in this setting in the United States.

“So, it’s a pipe dream, seriously, that we will be able to utilize CAR T for all patients in early relapsed disease,” he said, adding that capacity will remain an issue because of limited resources.

The existing data, including from KarMMa-3 and CARTITUDE-4, show little potential for long-term benefit with early vs later CAR T.

“There is no plateau,” he said of the survival curves in KarMMa-3, underscoring the lack of a difference in overall survival benefit based on CAR T timing.

The CARTITUDE-4 curves “look great,” and it may be that a “small plateau emerges,” but they don’t demonstrate a benefit of earlier vs later CAR T, he said.

As Dr. Patel noted, there are few treatment options for patients with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and immunomodulatory drug resistance at first relapse. However, that situation will soon change, Dr. Usmani stated.

“Guess what? Belamaf is coming to the rescue!” he said of the off-the-shelf and more accessible B-cell maturation antigen-targeted antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, which has recently been evaluated in the DREAMM 7 and DREAMM 8 trials.

DREAMM 7 demonstrated improved survival vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in the relapsed/refractory MM setting when used in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. DREAMM 8 shows similar benefit with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone vs pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

“Belamaf combinations in the one to three lines [of prior therapy] setting look really good,” he said, noting a particular benefit for progression-free survival and a trend toward improved overall survival.

Considering these factors, as well as the risk for cytopenias and the subsequent risk for infection in most patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy and the known potential risk for secondary malignancies, Dr. Usmani said that he will remain “in the camp of being really careful in selecting CAR T patients for early relapse” until more is known about the risks.

“CAR T for all is not the answer. I think we have to be careful in picking CAR T patients; it’s not a zero-sum game here,” he said, stressing that “there are too many unknowns with the use of early CAR T therapy.”

“It makes sense in some, but not for everyone,” he said, emphasizing the importance of including patients in the discussion.

“The great thing is we have all these options for our patients,” he said.

Dr. Usmani persuaded at least a few colleagues: The final vote showed 42% of 124 voters supported early CAR T, compared with 52% who supported CAR T after three or more lines of therapy and 6% who remained undecided.

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

You may have been warned that ultra-processed foods can wreak havoc on your health. But not all of them are created equal. 

A new study out of The Lancet Regional Health – Americas looked at different types of ultra-processed foods and found that some were even linked with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, 

“Avoiding all ultra-processed foods is not practical for most people,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist, public health scientist, and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts. “So, it is helpful to start to understand, within the category of all processing, what food might be more or less harmful.”

Researchers analyzed food questionnaires from three large groups of US adults, with most people in their review being White and female. The study found that sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, along with processed meats, were linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. But cereals, savory snacks, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a lower risk of these diseases. Ultra-processed cereals and breads were also linked to a lower stroke risk. 
 

The Truth About Processed Meat

Studies show that cured, salted, or smoked meats are linked to certain cancers.

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with metabolic derangement for things like higher glucose levels, insulin resistance, visceral obesity, prediabetes, diabetes, and higher triglycerides,” said Ashish Sarraju, MD, a cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “Added sugars associated with all of those things are in turn risk factors for heart disease.” Sugar-sweetened beverages are often very high in sugar, artificial colors, and other additives, and almost “nothing beneficial” in terms of ingredients, Dr. Mozaffarian said. “They’re also consumed in very high doses, very quickly.”

Processed meats have 400% higher levels of salt, compared with unprocessed meats, said Dr. Mozaffarian. They also contain high levels of added nitrates, which are a carcinogen that could also affect the heart and blood vessels. Certain ultra-processed foods, such as bacon, are often fried at sky-high temperatures, which can trigger inflammatory compounds. 

“If you put together the inflammatory effects, the salt, and the nitrates, this is a package of food that can really build to cause harm,” said Dr. Mozaffarian. The World Health Organization has also classified processed meats (bacon, ham, salami) as a group one carcinogen, he noted.

“Processed meats are typically high in saturated fats, sodium, and preservatives, which can increase blood pressure, promote inflammation, and negatively affect cholesterol levels, leading to a higher risk of coronary heart disease, said Joseph A. Daibes, DO, an interventional cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City. “The study underscores the importance of limiting these types of foods to reduce cardiovascular risk.”

But considering that breakfast cereals – albeit highly processed – are a top source of whole grains for Americans, it makes sense that they are linked with lower risk of heart disease, said Dr. Mozaffarian. 

“They have fiber, bran, whole grains, and they also have sugar, and additives,” he said. “But on average, putting all those things together, this study suggested that the net effect is beneficial. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be more beneficial if we made them less processed, but they don’t seem to have harm.”

The active probiotics and fermentation in yogurt can make it a healthy snack of choice, as there has been more and more research showing that fermented foods with probiotics are good for heart health and work against metabolic disease, or a cluster of conditions that can increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Savory snacks, cereals, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts may also be less calorie dense than sugary beverages and processed meats, said Dr. Daibes. 

“Additionally, the type of fat used in savory snacks and the presence of probiotics in yogurt may have neutral or even positive effects on heart health, as opposed to the harmful fats and additives found in many ultra-processed foods,” he said.
 

How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Harm Your Health 

There are “clear and concerning links” between eating ultra-processed foods and getting heart disease, according to Dr. Daibes. “In real-life clinical practice, it’s a rather clear and straightforward relationship – the patients who tend to have poorer diets, with more ultra-processed and nutrient-barren foods, tend to have worse health outcomes, both cardiovascular and otherwise.”

Processing foods is centered on breaking down the natural structures of foods, as well as the loss of their natural nutrients, Dr. Mozaffarian explained. When you include the word “ultra,” this refers to putting in industrial additives.

“I think refined starches (such as wheat, corn, and rice) and sugars are some of the biggest harms because it leads to a big spike in blood glucose,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But also, those refined starches and sugars are digested so quickly in the stomach and small intestine that you starve your gut bacteria in your large intestines.” 

Many “good-for-you ingredients,” such as fermentable fibers and bio-active compounds, are found in unprocessed, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and seeds, noted Dr. Mozaffarian. High levels of salt in ultra-processed foods are another cause for concern, as are other additives such as artificial flavorings, sweeteners, and thickeners. 
 

Opting for Whole Foods

There may be people looking to eat cleaner, unprocessed foods, but high cost and a lack of access to them could create challenges. Dr. Sarraju advises his patients to simply do their best to eat foods in their whole-ingredient form and avoid prepackaged foods as much as possible.

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

You may have been warned that ultra-processed foods can wreak havoc on your health. But not all of them are created equal. 

A new study out of The Lancet Regional Health – Americas looked at different types of ultra-processed foods and found that some were even linked with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, 

“Avoiding all ultra-processed foods is not practical for most people,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist, public health scientist, and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts. “So, it is helpful to start to understand, within the category of all processing, what food might be more or less harmful.”

Researchers analyzed food questionnaires from three large groups of US adults, with most people in their review being White and female. The study found that sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, along with processed meats, were linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. But cereals, savory snacks, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a lower risk of these diseases. Ultra-processed cereals and breads were also linked to a lower stroke risk. 
 

The Truth About Processed Meat

Studies show that cured, salted, or smoked meats are linked to certain cancers.

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with metabolic derangement for things like higher glucose levels, insulin resistance, visceral obesity, prediabetes, diabetes, and higher triglycerides,” said Ashish Sarraju, MD, a cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “Added sugars associated with all of those things are in turn risk factors for heart disease.” Sugar-sweetened beverages are often very high in sugar, artificial colors, and other additives, and almost “nothing beneficial” in terms of ingredients, Dr. Mozaffarian said. “They’re also consumed in very high doses, very quickly.”

Processed meats have 400% higher levels of salt, compared with unprocessed meats, said Dr. Mozaffarian. They also contain high levels of added nitrates, which are a carcinogen that could also affect the heart and blood vessels. Certain ultra-processed foods, such as bacon, are often fried at sky-high temperatures, which can trigger inflammatory compounds. 

“If you put together the inflammatory effects, the salt, and the nitrates, this is a package of food that can really build to cause harm,” said Dr. Mozaffarian. The World Health Organization has also classified processed meats (bacon, ham, salami) as a group one carcinogen, he noted.

“Processed meats are typically high in saturated fats, sodium, and preservatives, which can increase blood pressure, promote inflammation, and negatively affect cholesterol levels, leading to a higher risk of coronary heart disease, said Joseph A. Daibes, DO, an interventional cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City. “The study underscores the importance of limiting these types of foods to reduce cardiovascular risk.”

But considering that breakfast cereals – albeit highly processed – are a top source of whole grains for Americans, it makes sense that they are linked with lower risk of heart disease, said Dr. Mozaffarian. 

“They have fiber, bran, whole grains, and they also have sugar, and additives,” he said. “But on average, putting all those things together, this study suggested that the net effect is beneficial. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be more beneficial if we made them less processed, but they don’t seem to have harm.”

The active probiotics and fermentation in yogurt can make it a healthy snack of choice, as there has been more and more research showing that fermented foods with probiotics are good for heart health and work against metabolic disease, or a cluster of conditions that can increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Savory snacks, cereals, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts may also be less calorie dense than sugary beverages and processed meats, said Dr. Daibes. 

“Additionally, the type of fat used in savory snacks and the presence of probiotics in yogurt may have neutral or even positive effects on heart health, as opposed to the harmful fats and additives found in many ultra-processed foods,” he said.
 

How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Harm Your Health 

There are “clear and concerning links” between eating ultra-processed foods and getting heart disease, according to Dr. Daibes. “In real-life clinical practice, it’s a rather clear and straightforward relationship – the patients who tend to have poorer diets, with more ultra-processed and nutrient-barren foods, tend to have worse health outcomes, both cardiovascular and otherwise.”

Processing foods is centered on breaking down the natural structures of foods, as well as the loss of their natural nutrients, Dr. Mozaffarian explained. When you include the word “ultra,” this refers to putting in industrial additives.

“I think refined starches (such as wheat, corn, and rice) and sugars are some of the biggest harms because it leads to a big spike in blood glucose,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But also, those refined starches and sugars are digested so quickly in the stomach and small intestine that you starve your gut bacteria in your large intestines.” 

Many “good-for-you ingredients,” such as fermentable fibers and bio-active compounds, are found in unprocessed, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and seeds, noted Dr. Mozaffarian. High levels of salt in ultra-processed foods are another cause for concern, as are other additives such as artificial flavorings, sweeteners, and thickeners. 
 

Opting for Whole Foods

There may be people looking to eat cleaner, unprocessed foods, but high cost and a lack of access to them could create challenges. Dr. Sarraju advises his patients to simply do their best to eat foods in their whole-ingredient form and avoid prepackaged foods as much as possible.

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

You may have been warned that ultra-processed foods can wreak havoc on your health. But not all of them are created equal. 

A new study out of The Lancet Regional Health – Americas looked at different types of ultra-processed foods and found that some were even linked with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, 

“Avoiding all ultra-processed foods is not practical for most people,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist, public health scientist, and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts. “So, it is helpful to start to understand, within the category of all processing, what food might be more or less harmful.”

Researchers analyzed food questionnaires from three large groups of US adults, with most people in their review being White and female. The study found that sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, along with processed meats, were linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. But cereals, savory snacks, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a lower risk of these diseases. Ultra-processed cereals and breads were also linked to a lower stroke risk. 
 

The Truth About Processed Meat

Studies show that cured, salted, or smoked meats are linked to certain cancers.

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with metabolic derangement for things like higher glucose levels, insulin resistance, visceral obesity, prediabetes, diabetes, and higher triglycerides,” said Ashish Sarraju, MD, a cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “Added sugars associated with all of those things are in turn risk factors for heart disease.” Sugar-sweetened beverages are often very high in sugar, artificial colors, and other additives, and almost “nothing beneficial” in terms of ingredients, Dr. Mozaffarian said. “They’re also consumed in very high doses, very quickly.”

Processed meats have 400% higher levels of salt, compared with unprocessed meats, said Dr. Mozaffarian. They also contain high levels of added nitrates, which are a carcinogen that could also affect the heart and blood vessels. Certain ultra-processed foods, such as bacon, are often fried at sky-high temperatures, which can trigger inflammatory compounds. 

“If you put together the inflammatory effects, the salt, and the nitrates, this is a package of food that can really build to cause harm,” said Dr. Mozaffarian. The World Health Organization has also classified processed meats (bacon, ham, salami) as a group one carcinogen, he noted.

“Processed meats are typically high in saturated fats, sodium, and preservatives, which can increase blood pressure, promote inflammation, and negatively affect cholesterol levels, leading to a higher risk of coronary heart disease, said Joseph A. Daibes, DO, an interventional cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City. “The study underscores the importance of limiting these types of foods to reduce cardiovascular risk.”

But considering that breakfast cereals – albeit highly processed – are a top source of whole grains for Americans, it makes sense that they are linked with lower risk of heart disease, said Dr. Mozaffarian. 

“They have fiber, bran, whole grains, and they also have sugar, and additives,” he said. “But on average, putting all those things together, this study suggested that the net effect is beneficial. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be more beneficial if we made them less processed, but they don’t seem to have harm.”

The active probiotics and fermentation in yogurt can make it a healthy snack of choice, as there has been more and more research showing that fermented foods with probiotics are good for heart health and work against metabolic disease, or a cluster of conditions that can increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Savory snacks, cereals, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts may also be less calorie dense than sugary beverages and processed meats, said Dr. Daibes. 

“Additionally, the type of fat used in savory snacks and the presence of probiotics in yogurt may have neutral or even positive effects on heart health, as opposed to the harmful fats and additives found in many ultra-processed foods,” he said.
 

How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Harm Your Health 

There are “clear and concerning links” between eating ultra-processed foods and getting heart disease, according to Dr. Daibes. “In real-life clinical practice, it’s a rather clear and straightforward relationship – the patients who tend to have poorer diets, with more ultra-processed and nutrient-barren foods, tend to have worse health outcomes, both cardiovascular and otherwise.”

Processing foods is centered on breaking down the natural structures of foods, as well as the loss of their natural nutrients, Dr. Mozaffarian explained. When you include the word “ultra,” this refers to putting in industrial additives.

“I think refined starches (such as wheat, corn, and rice) and sugars are some of the biggest harms because it leads to a big spike in blood glucose,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But also, those refined starches and sugars are digested so quickly in the stomach and small intestine that you starve your gut bacteria in your large intestines.” 

Many “good-for-you ingredients,” such as fermentable fibers and bio-active compounds, are found in unprocessed, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and seeds, noted Dr. Mozaffarian. High levels of salt in ultra-processed foods are another cause for concern, as are other additives such as artificial flavorings, sweeteners, and thickeners. 
 

Opting for Whole Foods

There may be people looking to eat cleaner, unprocessed foods, but high cost and a lack of access to them could create challenges. Dr. Sarraju advises his patients to simply do their best to eat foods in their whole-ingredient form and avoid prepackaged foods as much as possible.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

Background

Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.

Results

Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.

Background

Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.

Results

Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.

Background

Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.

Results

Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.

Approximately two thirds of hospitalized adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) received suboptimal treatment with inhalers, mainly resulting from errors, based on data from 96 individuals.

“Numerous studies have highlighted the significant issue of improper inhaler use in outpatient settings, but the extent of this problem within hospital settings remains poorly documented,” said lead author Gaël Grandmaison, MD, of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, in an interview.

“This gap in knowledge is concerning, especially considering that several factors associated with suboptimal inhaler use, such as improper inhalation techniques, insufficient inspiratory flow, or the use of inhalers that are not suited to the patient’s specific characteristics, are associated with poorer disease control, more frequent exacerbations, and increased costs,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

To better characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with inhaler misuse in hospitalized patients with COPD, the researchers reviewed data from consecutive patients with COPD who were hospitalized in the general internal medicine department of a single institution between August 2022 and April 2023. Patients were assessed for peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaler technique.

The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, which was defined as any inhaler used with either insufficient PIF and/or a critical error. The mean age of the patients was 71.6 years, 63% were men, and 67% were hospitalized for COPD exacerbations. Patients used 3.0 inhalers on average.

The study included 96 patients and 160 inhalers that were assessed at hospital admission. Overall, 111 were misused. Of those misused, 105 were associated with a critical error in the inhalation technique, and 22 were used with an insufficient PIF. After an episode of misuse, patients received targeted teaching on correct use that was repeated until they performed the technique without errors.

The percentage of inhaler misuse decreased over the course of the teaching sessions. The proportion of inhaler misuse decreased to 20.6%, 9.4%, and 5.6% after one, two, and three sessions, respectively.

“The inhalation technique was classified as ‘non-teachable’ if the patient continued to exhibit critical errors despite receiving three repetitions of the instructions,” the researchers wrote. Factors associated with inhaler misuse included cognitive disorders, fine motor disorders, poor coordination between inhaler activation and aspiration, and the inability to hold one’s breath.

Overall, the proportion of misused inhalers did not vary by age or gender. In an analysis at the patient level, 79 patients used at least one misused inhaler, 78 used at least one inhaler with a critical error, and 21 used inhalers with insufficient PIF.

“This study is particularly timely because reasons for hospitalization, such as COPD exacerbations or confusional states, could exacerbate the problem, leading to a potentially higher prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use compared to outpatient settings,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

The researchers also examined secondary outcomes including the prevalence of inhalers that were not suited to them and the number of patients using at least one misused inhaler.

The study findings confirm that suboptimal inhaler use is a significant problem in the hospital setting and provide new insights into the specific reasons behind this suboptimal usage, Dr. Grandmaison said.

“In the majority of cases, poor inhalation technique is the primary cause, which can generally be corrected through targeted therapeutic education,” she said. However, the study also revealed that 20% of patients are unable to use at least one of their inhalers correctly because of insufficient inspiratory force. Another 10% struggle despite receiving proper instruction, often because of cognitive impairments or difficulty with fine motor skills.

The results underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to inhaler use in hospitalized patients that combines continuous therapeutic education with personalized assessment in order to improve technique and subsequently enhance patient outcomes, she said.
 

Changing Clinical Practice

“As hospital physicians, these findings have led us to systematically evaluate the inhalers used by COPD patients, regardless of their reason for hospitalization,” Dr. Grandmaison said. Consequently, the hospital has implemented an assessment of inhaler use among patients that includes a review of techniques, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the inhaler prescribed, and an algorithm to help clinicians choose the most appropriate inhaler. Since its inception, the targeted intervention has significantly reduced improper inhaler use at discharge.

Limitations and Next Steps

The findings were limited by several factors including the possible underreporting of misuse caused by inadequate PIF, a lack of consensus on what constitutes a critical error, and the small sample of patients from a single center.

Despite these limitations, the study adds to the understanding of improper inhaler use in the hospital setting, Dr. Grandmaison said. “Our subsequent research demonstrated that a systematic evaluation of inhalers, combined with therapeutic education and an algorithm to select an inhaler suited to the patient’s characteristics, significantly reduces the number of improperly used inhalers at hospital discharge.”

However, several areas require further investigation, said Dr. Grandmaison. The most effective methods and frequency for teaching inhalation techniques must be defined, and more research is needed to understand the factors influencing PIF and its progression over the course of disease. The next steps for the current research are to evaluate the impact of the intervention on long-term symptom control and disease progression.

“Moreover, adapting the strategy developed in our institution for use in outpatient care is a priority, and multicenter studies would be valuable in validating these findings across different hospital settings,” she added.
 

In-Hospital Inhaler Education Falls Short

“Poor inhaler technique can lead to ineffective inhaler use and suboptimal treatment of COPD,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in an interview.

“The results from this study are consistent with prior studies showing a high prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use,” said Dr. Baldomero, who was not involved in the current study.

“The investigators also found that therapeutic education led to a significant reduction in the number of critical errors,” she said.

“What is surprising is that it can take up to three lessons to reduce this critical error down to 3.8%,” Dr. Baldomero said. “In most real-world clinic settings, many patients are not taught how to properly use inhalers, and many patients who receive inhaler technique education only receive instructions once.”

Dr. Baldomero’s takeaway from the study is that teaching patients to properly use their inhalers is critical, but that this education may need to be repeated multiple times. The findings also remind clinicians that some types of inhaler delivery are not suited for patients who cannot generate adequate respiratory flow.

Looking ahead, a larger sample size is needed to better identify which patients need additional teaching, Dr. Baldomero said. Also, the current study is limited by the focus on hospitalized patients. “I am interested in learning about the characteristics of patients in the outpatient settings who would benefit from additional inhaler teaching,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Hospital of Fribourg in Switzerland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Approximately two thirds of hospitalized adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) received suboptimal treatment with inhalers, mainly resulting from errors, based on data from 96 individuals.

“Numerous studies have highlighted the significant issue of improper inhaler use in outpatient settings, but the extent of this problem within hospital settings remains poorly documented,” said lead author Gaël Grandmaison, MD, of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, in an interview.

“This gap in knowledge is concerning, especially considering that several factors associated with suboptimal inhaler use, such as improper inhalation techniques, insufficient inspiratory flow, or the use of inhalers that are not suited to the patient’s specific characteristics, are associated with poorer disease control, more frequent exacerbations, and increased costs,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

To better characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with inhaler misuse in hospitalized patients with COPD, the researchers reviewed data from consecutive patients with COPD who were hospitalized in the general internal medicine department of a single institution between August 2022 and April 2023. Patients were assessed for peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaler technique.

The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, which was defined as any inhaler used with either insufficient PIF and/or a critical error. The mean age of the patients was 71.6 years, 63% were men, and 67% were hospitalized for COPD exacerbations. Patients used 3.0 inhalers on average.

The study included 96 patients and 160 inhalers that were assessed at hospital admission. Overall, 111 were misused. Of those misused, 105 were associated with a critical error in the inhalation technique, and 22 were used with an insufficient PIF. After an episode of misuse, patients received targeted teaching on correct use that was repeated until they performed the technique without errors.

The percentage of inhaler misuse decreased over the course of the teaching sessions. The proportion of inhaler misuse decreased to 20.6%, 9.4%, and 5.6% after one, two, and three sessions, respectively.

“The inhalation technique was classified as ‘non-teachable’ if the patient continued to exhibit critical errors despite receiving three repetitions of the instructions,” the researchers wrote. Factors associated with inhaler misuse included cognitive disorders, fine motor disorders, poor coordination between inhaler activation and aspiration, and the inability to hold one’s breath.

Overall, the proportion of misused inhalers did not vary by age or gender. In an analysis at the patient level, 79 patients used at least one misused inhaler, 78 used at least one inhaler with a critical error, and 21 used inhalers with insufficient PIF.

“This study is particularly timely because reasons for hospitalization, such as COPD exacerbations or confusional states, could exacerbate the problem, leading to a potentially higher prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use compared to outpatient settings,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

The researchers also examined secondary outcomes including the prevalence of inhalers that were not suited to them and the number of patients using at least one misused inhaler.

The study findings confirm that suboptimal inhaler use is a significant problem in the hospital setting and provide new insights into the specific reasons behind this suboptimal usage, Dr. Grandmaison said.

“In the majority of cases, poor inhalation technique is the primary cause, which can generally be corrected through targeted therapeutic education,” she said. However, the study also revealed that 20% of patients are unable to use at least one of their inhalers correctly because of insufficient inspiratory force. Another 10% struggle despite receiving proper instruction, often because of cognitive impairments or difficulty with fine motor skills.

The results underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to inhaler use in hospitalized patients that combines continuous therapeutic education with personalized assessment in order to improve technique and subsequently enhance patient outcomes, she said.
 

Changing Clinical Practice

“As hospital physicians, these findings have led us to systematically evaluate the inhalers used by COPD patients, regardless of their reason for hospitalization,” Dr. Grandmaison said. Consequently, the hospital has implemented an assessment of inhaler use among patients that includes a review of techniques, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the inhaler prescribed, and an algorithm to help clinicians choose the most appropriate inhaler. Since its inception, the targeted intervention has significantly reduced improper inhaler use at discharge.

Limitations and Next Steps

The findings were limited by several factors including the possible underreporting of misuse caused by inadequate PIF, a lack of consensus on what constitutes a critical error, and the small sample of patients from a single center.

Despite these limitations, the study adds to the understanding of improper inhaler use in the hospital setting, Dr. Grandmaison said. “Our subsequent research demonstrated that a systematic evaluation of inhalers, combined with therapeutic education and an algorithm to select an inhaler suited to the patient’s characteristics, significantly reduces the number of improperly used inhalers at hospital discharge.”

However, several areas require further investigation, said Dr. Grandmaison. The most effective methods and frequency for teaching inhalation techniques must be defined, and more research is needed to understand the factors influencing PIF and its progression over the course of disease. The next steps for the current research are to evaluate the impact of the intervention on long-term symptom control and disease progression.

“Moreover, adapting the strategy developed in our institution for use in outpatient care is a priority, and multicenter studies would be valuable in validating these findings across different hospital settings,” she added.
 

In-Hospital Inhaler Education Falls Short

“Poor inhaler technique can lead to ineffective inhaler use and suboptimal treatment of COPD,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in an interview.

“The results from this study are consistent with prior studies showing a high prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use,” said Dr. Baldomero, who was not involved in the current study.

“The investigators also found that therapeutic education led to a significant reduction in the number of critical errors,” she said.

“What is surprising is that it can take up to three lessons to reduce this critical error down to 3.8%,” Dr. Baldomero said. “In most real-world clinic settings, many patients are not taught how to properly use inhalers, and many patients who receive inhaler technique education only receive instructions once.”

Dr. Baldomero’s takeaway from the study is that teaching patients to properly use their inhalers is critical, but that this education may need to be repeated multiple times. The findings also remind clinicians that some types of inhaler delivery are not suited for patients who cannot generate adequate respiratory flow.

Looking ahead, a larger sample size is needed to better identify which patients need additional teaching, Dr. Baldomero said. Also, the current study is limited by the focus on hospitalized patients. “I am interested in learning about the characteristics of patients in the outpatient settings who would benefit from additional inhaler teaching,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Hospital of Fribourg in Switzerland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Approximately two thirds of hospitalized adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) received suboptimal treatment with inhalers, mainly resulting from errors, based on data from 96 individuals.

“Numerous studies have highlighted the significant issue of improper inhaler use in outpatient settings, but the extent of this problem within hospital settings remains poorly documented,” said lead author Gaël Grandmaison, MD, of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, in an interview.

“This gap in knowledge is concerning, especially considering that several factors associated with suboptimal inhaler use, such as improper inhalation techniques, insufficient inspiratory flow, or the use of inhalers that are not suited to the patient’s specific characteristics, are associated with poorer disease control, more frequent exacerbations, and increased costs,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

To better characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with inhaler misuse in hospitalized patients with COPD, the researchers reviewed data from consecutive patients with COPD who were hospitalized in the general internal medicine department of a single institution between August 2022 and April 2023. Patients were assessed for peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaler technique.

The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, which was defined as any inhaler used with either insufficient PIF and/or a critical error. The mean age of the patients was 71.6 years, 63% were men, and 67% were hospitalized for COPD exacerbations. Patients used 3.0 inhalers on average.

The study included 96 patients and 160 inhalers that were assessed at hospital admission. Overall, 111 were misused. Of those misused, 105 were associated with a critical error in the inhalation technique, and 22 were used with an insufficient PIF. After an episode of misuse, patients received targeted teaching on correct use that was repeated until they performed the technique without errors.

The percentage of inhaler misuse decreased over the course of the teaching sessions. The proportion of inhaler misuse decreased to 20.6%, 9.4%, and 5.6% after one, two, and three sessions, respectively.

“The inhalation technique was classified as ‘non-teachable’ if the patient continued to exhibit critical errors despite receiving three repetitions of the instructions,” the researchers wrote. Factors associated with inhaler misuse included cognitive disorders, fine motor disorders, poor coordination between inhaler activation and aspiration, and the inability to hold one’s breath.

Overall, the proportion of misused inhalers did not vary by age or gender. In an analysis at the patient level, 79 patients used at least one misused inhaler, 78 used at least one inhaler with a critical error, and 21 used inhalers with insufficient PIF.

“This study is particularly timely because reasons for hospitalization, such as COPD exacerbations or confusional states, could exacerbate the problem, leading to a potentially higher prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use compared to outpatient settings,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

The researchers also examined secondary outcomes including the prevalence of inhalers that were not suited to them and the number of patients using at least one misused inhaler.

The study findings confirm that suboptimal inhaler use is a significant problem in the hospital setting and provide new insights into the specific reasons behind this suboptimal usage, Dr. Grandmaison said.

“In the majority of cases, poor inhalation technique is the primary cause, which can generally be corrected through targeted therapeutic education,” she said. However, the study also revealed that 20% of patients are unable to use at least one of their inhalers correctly because of insufficient inspiratory force. Another 10% struggle despite receiving proper instruction, often because of cognitive impairments or difficulty with fine motor skills.

The results underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to inhaler use in hospitalized patients that combines continuous therapeutic education with personalized assessment in order to improve technique and subsequently enhance patient outcomes, she said.
 

Changing Clinical Practice

“As hospital physicians, these findings have led us to systematically evaluate the inhalers used by COPD patients, regardless of their reason for hospitalization,” Dr. Grandmaison said. Consequently, the hospital has implemented an assessment of inhaler use among patients that includes a review of techniques, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the inhaler prescribed, and an algorithm to help clinicians choose the most appropriate inhaler. Since its inception, the targeted intervention has significantly reduced improper inhaler use at discharge.

Limitations and Next Steps

The findings were limited by several factors including the possible underreporting of misuse caused by inadequate PIF, a lack of consensus on what constitutes a critical error, and the small sample of patients from a single center.

Despite these limitations, the study adds to the understanding of improper inhaler use in the hospital setting, Dr. Grandmaison said. “Our subsequent research demonstrated that a systematic evaluation of inhalers, combined with therapeutic education and an algorithm to select an inhaler suited to the patient’s characteristics, significantly reduces the number of improperly used inhalers at hospital discharge.”

However, several areas require further investigation, said Dr. Grandmaison. The most effective methods and frequency for teaching inhalation techniques must be defined, and more research is needed to understand the factors influencing PIF and its progression over the course of disease. The next steps for the current research are to evaluate the impact of the intervention on long-term symptom control and disease progression.

“Moreover, adapting the strategy developed in our institution for use in outpatient care is a priority, and multicenter studies would be valuable in validating these findings across different hospital settings,” she added.
 

In-Hospital Inhaler Education Falls Short

“Poor inhaler technique can lead to ineffective inhaler use and suboptimal treatment of COPD,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in an interview.

“The results from this study are consistent with prior studies showing a high prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use,” said Dr. Baldomero, who was not involved in the current study.

“The investigators also found that therapeutic education led to a significant reduction in the number of critical errors,” she said.

“What is surprising is that it can take up to three lessons to reduce this critical error down to 3.8%,” Dr. Baldomero said. “In most real-world clinic settings, many patients are not taught how to properly use inhalers, and many patients who receive inhaler technique education only receive instructions once.”

Dr. Baldomero’s takeaway from the study is that teaching patients to properly use their inhalers is critical, but that this education may need to be repeated multiple times. The findings also remind clinicians that some types of inhaler delivery are not suited for patients who cannot generate adequate respiratory flow.

Looking ahead, a larger sample size is needed to better identify which patients need additional teaching, Dr. Baldomero said. Also, the current study is limited by the focus on hospitalized patients. “I am interested in learning about the characteristics of patients in the outpatient settings who would benefit from additional inhaler teaching,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Hospital of Fribourg in Switzerland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ability to save cardiac muscle during an acute coronary syndrome with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) made cardiology one of the most popular fields in medicine.

But acute coronary syndromes come in different categories. While rapid PCI clearly benefits patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the best use of angiography and PCI for patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is more complex.

The evidence for early invasive vs conservative strategies in patients with NSTEMI is mixed. There have been many trials and meta-analyses, and generally, outcomes are similar with either approach. Perhaps if one looks with enough optimism, there is a benefit for the more aggressive approach in higher-risk patients.

Despite the similar outcomes with the two strategies, most patients are treated with the early invasive approach. Early and invasive fit the spirit of modern cardiology.

Yet, older patients with acute coronary syndromes present a different challenge. NSTEMI trials, like most trials, enrolled mostly younger adults. 

Whether evidence obtained in young people applies to older patients is one of the most common and important questions in all of medical practice. Older patients may be at higher risk for a primary outcome, but they also have greater risks for harm from therapy as well as more competing causes of morbidity and mortality. 

Only a handful of smaller trials have enrolled older patients with NSTEMI. These trials have produced little evidence that an early invasive approach should be preferred.
 

The SENIOR-RITA Trial

At ESC, Vijay Kunadian, MD, from Newcastle, England, presented results of SENIOR-RITA, a large trial comparing an invasive vs conservative strategy in NSTEMI patients 75 years of age or older. 

In the conservative arm, coronary angiography was allowed if the patient deteriorated and the procedure was clinically indicated in the judgment of the treating physicians.

Slightly more than 1500 patients with NSTEMI were randomly assigned to either strategy in 48 centers in the United Kingdom. Their mean age was 82 years, nearly half were women, and about a third were frail. 

Over 4 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or MI occurred at a similar rate in both arms: 25.6% vs 26.3% for invasive vs conservative, respectively (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P =.53). 

Rates of CV death were also not significantly different (15.8% vs 14.2%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.44). 

The rate of nonfatal MI was slightly lower in the invasive arm (11.7% vs 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99).

Some other notable findings: Fewer than half of patients in the invasive arm underwent revascularization. Coronary angiography was done in about a quarter of patients in the conservative arm, and revascularization in only 14%. 

Comments

Because medicine has improved and patients live longer, cardiologists increasingly see older adults with frailty. It’s important to study these patients. 

The authors tell us that 1 in 5 patients screened were enrolled, and those not enrolled were similar in age and were treated nearly equally with either strategy. Not all trials offer this information; it’s important because knowing that patients in a trial are representative helps us translate evidence to our actual patients. 

Another positive was the investigators’ smart choice of cardiovascular death and MI as their primary outcome. Strategy trials are usually open label. If they had included an outcome that requires a decision from a clinician, such as unplanned revascularization, then bias becomes a possibility when patients and clinicians are aware of the treatment assignment. (I wrote about poor endpoint choice in the ABYSS trial.) 

The most notable finding in SENIOR-RITA was that approximately 76% of patients in the conservative arm did not have a coronary angiogram and 86% were not revascularized. 

Yet, the rate of CV death and MI were similar during 4 years of follow-up. This observation is nearly identical to the findings in chronic stable disease, seen in the ISCHEMIA trial. (See Figure 6a in the paper’s supplement.) 

I take two messages from this consistent observation: One is that medical therapy is quite good at treating coronary artery disease not associated with acute vessel closure in STEMI. 

The other is that using coronary angiography and revascularization as a bailout, in only a fraction of cases, achieves the same result, so the conservative strategy should be preferred.

I am not sure that the SENIOR-RITA researchers see it this way. They write in their discussion that “clinicians are often reluctant to offer an invasive strategy to frail older adults.” They then remind readers that modern PCI techniques (radial approach) have low rates of adverse events. 

Perhaps I misread their message, but that paragraph seemed like it was reinforcing our tendency to offer invasive approaches to patients with NSTEMI. 

I feel differently. When a trial reports similar outcomes with two strategies, I think we should favor the one with less intervention. I feel even more strongly about this philosophy in older patients with frailty.

Are we not in the business of helping people with the least amount of intervention?

The greatest challenge for the cardiologist of today is not a lack of treatment options, but whether we should use all options in older, frailer adults. 

Good on the SENIOR-RITA investigators, for they have shown that we can avoid intervention in the vast majority of older adults presenting with NSTEMI. 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The ability to save cardiac muscle during an acute coronary syndrome with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) made cardiology one of the most popular fields in medicine.

But acute coronary syndromes come in different categories. While rapid PCI clearly benefits patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the best use of angiography and PCI for patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is more complex.

The evidence for early invasive vs conservative strategies in patients with NSTEMI is mixed. There have been many trials and meta-analyses, and generally, outcomes are similar with either approach. Perhaps if one looks with enough optimism, there is a benefit for the more aggressive approach in higher-risk patients.

Despite the similar outcomes with the two strategies, most patients are treated with the early invasive approach. Early and invasive fit the spirit of modern cardiology.

Yet, older patients with acute coronary syndromes present a different challenge. NSTEMI trials, like most trials, enrolled mostly younger adults. 

Whether evidence obtained in young people applies to older patients is one of the most common and important questions in all of medical practice. Older patients may be at higher risk for a primary outcome, but they also have greater risks for harm from therapy as well as more competing causes of morbidity and mortality. 

Only a handful of smaller trials have enrolled older patients with NSTEMI. These trials have produced little evidence that an early invasive approach should be preferred.
 

The SENIOR-RITA Trial

At ESC, Vijay Kunadian, MD, from Newcastle, England, presented results of SENIOR-RITA, a large trial comparing an invasive vs conservative strategy in NSTEMI patients 75 years of age or older. 

In the conservative arm, coronary angiography was allowed if the patient deteriorated and the procedure was clinically indicated in the judgment of the treating physicians.

Slightly more than 1500 patients with NSTEMI were randomly assigned to either strategy in 48 centers in the United Kingdom. Their mean age was 82 years, nearly half were women, and about a third were frail. 

Over 4 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or MI occurred at a similar rate in both arms: 25.6% vs 26.3% for invasive vs conservative, respectively (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P =.53). 

Rates of CV death were also not significantly different (15.8% vs 14.2%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.44). 

The rate of nonfatal MI was slightly lower in the invasive arm (11.7% vs 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99).

Some other notable findings: Fewer than half of patients in the invasive arm underwent revascularization. Coronary angiography was done in about a quarter of patients in the conservative arm, and revascularization in only 14%. 

Comments

Because medicine has improved and patients live longer, cardiologists increasingly see older adults with frailty. It’s important to study these patients. 

The authors tell us that 1 in 5 patients screened were enrolled, and those not enrolled were similar in age and were treated nearly equally with either strategy. Not all trials offer this information; it’s important because knowing that patients in a trial are representative helps us translate evidence to our actual patients. 

Another positive was the investigators’ smart choice of cardiovascular death and MI as their primary outcome. Strategy trials are usually open label. If they had included an outcome that requires a decision from a clinician, such as unplanned revascularization, then bias becomes a possibility when patients and clinicians are aware of the treatment assignment. (I wrote about poor endpoint choice in the ABYSS trial.) 

The most notable finding in SENIOR-RITA was that approximately 76% of patients in the conservative arm did not have a coronary angiogram and 86% were not revascularized. 

Yet, the rate of CV death and MI were similar during 4 years of follow-up. This observation is nearly identical to the findings in chronic stable disease, seen in the ISCHEMIA trial. (See Figure 6a in the paper’s supplement.) 

I take two messages from this consistent observation: One is that medical therapy is quite good at treating coronary artery disease not associated with acute vessel closure in STEMI. 

The other is that using coronary angiography and revascularization as a bailout, in only a fraction of cases, achieves the same result, so the conservative strategy should be preferred.

I am not sure that the SENIOR-RITA researchers see it this way. They write in their discussion that “clinicians are often reluctant to offer an invasive strategy to frail older adults.” They then remind readers that modern PCI techniques (radial approach) have low rates of adverse events. 

Perhaps I misread their message, but that paragraph seemed like it was reinforcing our tendency to offer invasive approaches to patients with NSTEMI. 

I feel differently. When a trial reports similar outcomes with two strategies, I think we should favor the one with less intervention. I feel even more strongly about this philosophy in older patients with frailty.

Are we not in the business of helping people with the least amount of intervention?

The greatest challenge for the cardiologist of today is not a lack of treatment options, but whether we should use all options in older, frailer adults. 

Good on the SENIOR-RITA investigators, for they have shown that we can avoid intervention in the vast majority of older adults presenting with NSTEMI. 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The ability to save cardiac muscle during an acute coronary syndrome with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) made cardiology one of the most popular fields in medicine.

But acute coronary syndromes come in different categories. While rapid PCI clearly benefits patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the best use of angiography and PCI for patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is more complex.

The evidence for early invasive vs conservative strategies in patients with NSTEMI is mixed. There have been many trials and meta-analyses, and generally, outcomes are similar with either approach. Perhaps if one looks with enough optimism, there is a benefit for the more aggressive approach in higher-risk patients.

Despite the similar outcomes with the two strategies, most patients are treated with the early invasive approach. Early and invasive fit the spirit of modern cardiology.

Yet, older patients with acute coronary syndromes present a different challenge. NSTEMI trials, like most trials, enrolled mostly younger adults. 

Whether evidence obtained in young people applies to older patients is one of the most common and important questions in all of medical practice. Older patients may be at higher risk for a primary outcome, but they also have greater risks for harm from therapy as well as more competing causes of morbidity and mortality. 

Only a handful of smaller trials have enrolled older patients with NSTEMI. These trials have produced little evidence that an early invasive approach should be preferred.
 

The SENIOR-RITA Trial

At ESC, Vijay Kunadian, MD, from Newcastle, England, presented results of SENIOR-RITA, a large trial comparing an invasive vs conservative strategy in NSTEMI patients 75 years of age or older. 

In the conservative arm, coronary angiography was allowed if the patient deteriorated and the procedure was clinically indicated in the judgment of the treating physicians.

Slightly more than 1500 patients with NSTEMI were randomly assigned to either strategy in 48 centers in the United Kingdom. Their mean age was 82 years, nearly half were women, and about a third were frail. 

Over 4 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or MI occurred at a similar rate in both arms: 25.6% vs 26.3% for invasive vs conservative, respectively (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P =.53). 

Rates of CV death were also not significantly different (15.8% vs 14.2%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.44). 

The rate of nonfatal MI was slightly lower in the invasive arm (11.7% vs 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99).

Some other notable findings: Fewer than half of patients in the invasive arm underwent revascularization. Coronary angiography was done in about a quarter of patients in the conservative arm, and revascularization in only 14%. 

Comments

Because medicine has improved and patients live longer, cardiologists increasingly see older adults with frailty. It’s important to study these patients. 

The authors tell us that 1 in 5 patients screened were enrolled, and those not enrolled were similar in age and were treated nearly equally with either strategy. Not all trials offer this information; it’s important because knowing that patients in a trial are representative helps us translate evidence to our actual patients. 

Another positive was the investigators’ smart choice of cardiovascular death and MI as their primary outcome. Strategy trials are usually open label. If they had included an outcome that requires a decision from a clinician, such as unplanned revascularization, then bias becomes a possibility when patients and clinicians are aware of the treatment assignment. (I wrote about poor endpoint choice in the ABYSS trial.) 

The most notable finding in SENIOR-RITA was that approximately 76% of patients in the conservative arm did not have a coronary angiogram and 86% were not revascularized. 

Yet, the rate of CV death and MI were similar during 4 years of follow-up. This observation is nearly identical to the findings in chronic stable disease, seen in the ISCHEMIA trial. (See Figure 6a in the paper’s supplement.) 

I take two messages from this consistent observation: One is that medical therapy is quite good at treating coronary artery disease not associated with acute vessel closure in STEMI. 

The other is that using coronary angiography and revascularization as a bailout, in only a fraction of cases, achieves the same result, so the conservative strategy should be preferred.

I am not sure that the SENIOR-RITA researchers see it this way. They write in their discussion that “clinicians are often reluctant to offer an invasive strategy to frail older adults.” They then remind readers that modern PCI techniques (radial approach) have low rates of adverse events. 

Perhaps I misread their message, but that paragraph seemed like it was reinforcing our tendency to offer invasive approaches to patients with NSTEMI. 

I feel differently. When a trial reports similar outcomes with two strategies, I think we should favor the one with less intervention. I feel even more strongly about this philosophy in older patients with frailty.

Are we not in the business of helping people with the least amount of intervention?

The greatest challenge for the cardiologist of today is not a lack of treatment options, but whether we should use all options in older, frailer adults. 

Good on the SENIOR-RITA investigators, for they have shown that we can avoid intervention in the vast majority of older adults presenting with NSTEMI. 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AGA editorial fellowship program, currently in its seventh year, selects several outstanding individuals who are interested in scientific publishing to take part in the year-long program. We are excited to announce the 2024-25 participants, who will gain hands-on experience and mentorship working closely with the editors and staff at the AGA journals over the next year.

The 10 editorial fellows (2 per journal) will learn about the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to peer review to acceptance. They will participate in discussions and conferences with the boards of editors, assist with manuscript review, and help disseminate articles via their social media platforms.

AGA

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Robyn Jordan, MD, MPH

Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore | USA

Daryl Ramai, MD, MPH, MSc

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston | USA
 

Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Kole H. Buckley, PhD

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia | USA

Lin Y. Hung, PhD

New York University | USA
 

Gastroenterology

Corey J. Ketchem, MD

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia | USA

Rishad Khan, MD

University of Toronto | Canada
 

Gastro Hep Advances

Sasha Kapil, MD

UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas | USA

June Tome, MD

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota | USA
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Thomas Enke, MD

University of Colorado, Aurora | USA

Sami Elamin, MD

Harvard, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston | USA

The AGA editorial fellowship program, currently in its seventh year, selects several outstanding individuals who are interested in scientific publishing to take part in the year-long program. We are excited to announce the 2024-25 participants, who will gain hands-on experience and mentorship working closely with the editors and staff at the AGA journals over the next year.

The 10 editorial fellows (2 per journal) will learn about the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to peer review to acceptance. They will participate in discussions and conferences with the boards of editors, assist with manuscript review, and help disseminate articles via their social media platforms.

AGA

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Robyn Jordan, MD, MPH

Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore | USA

Daryl Ramai, MD, MPH, MSc

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston | USA
 

Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Kole H. Buckley, PhD

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia | USA

Lin Y. Hung, PhD

New York University | USA
 

Gastroenterology

Corey J. Ketchem, MD

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia | USA

Rishad Khan, MD

University of Toronto | Canada
 

Gastro Hep Advances

Sasha Kapil, MD

UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas | USA

June Tome, MD

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota | USA
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Thomas Enke, MD

University of Colorado, Aurora | USA

Sami Elamin, MD

Harvard, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston | USA

The AGA editorial fellowship program, currently in its seventh year, selects several outstanding individuals who are interested in scientific publishing to take part in the year-long program. We are excited to announce the 2024-25 participants, who will gain hands-on experience and mentorship working closely with the editors and staff at the AGA journals over the next year.

The 10 editorial fellows (2 per journal) will learn about the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to peer review to acceptance. They will participate in discussions and conferences with the boards of editors, assist with manuscript review, and help disseminate articles via their social media platforms.

AGA

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Robyn Jordan, MD, MPH

Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore | USA

Daryl Ramai, MD, MPH, MSc

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston | USA
 

Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Kole H. Buckley, PhD

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia | USA

Lin Y. Hung, PhD

New York University | USA
 

Gastroenterology

Corey J. Ketchem, MD

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia | USA

Rishad Khan, MD

University of Toronto | Canada
 

Gastro Hep Advances

Sasha Kapil, MD

UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas | USA

June Tome, MD

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota | USA
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Thomas Enke, MD

University of Colorado, Aurora | USA

Sami Elamin, MD

Harvard, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston | USA