Carolina Reyes, a Harvard-trained physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, got into medicine to help women obtain health care, especially underserved or marginalized people who face systemic racism. She’s seen progress, albeit slow, over three decades, yet the number of maternal deaths each year continues to rise.

Luckily, she’s got the ear of President Joe Biden’s health secretary.

Dr. Reyes, 64, is married to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who is championing the administration’s initiative to require all states to provide Medicaid coverage to mothers for a year after giving birth. In March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing a 40% increase in U.S. maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021. The mortality rate among Black women was 2.6 times that of white women, no matter their economic status.

Over the years, Mr. Becerra has spoken highly of his wife’s expertise, but she downplays her influence, saying her husband of nearly 35 years “had it in him to begin with” to improve health care for women and to demand fewer pregnancy-related deaths. She, too, describes the nation’s high maternal mortality rate as unacceptable and preventable.

Dr. Reyes, a Latina who grew up as one of eight children in California’s agricultural heartland, now practices perinatology at the University of California, Davis. She is a member of a California Department of Public Health panel that reviews cases of maternal deaths and recommends improvements. And she chairs the board of the California Health Care Foundation, a nonprofit that works to increase health care access. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

Her work has been a blend of medicine and advocacy, and she worries recent federal court rulings will erode hard-fought victories regarding the safety of pregnant women and their babies. She discussed the nation’s maternal health crisis and health care disparities in an interview, which has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: When did you first realize there are disparities in the health care system?

Answer: When I was in high school in the Fresno Unified School District, we were under a consent decree to desegregate. And I was, at the time, student body president at Roosevelt High School. I was asked to be on this unified school district desegregation task force, where the district had to come up with a plan.

It was a time when I really had incredible exposure to how policies are made at a larger level, societal level, that really determine where people live, where they can seek health care, where they go to school. That experience had a tremendous impact on my life in terms of what I wanted to do in a career and how to give back.
 

Q: The U.S. has one of the best health care systems in the world, yet the maternal mortality rate is high compared with other developed countries. Why do think that is?

A. What we know by the CDC and maternal mortality review committees is that about 60% of maternal deaths are considered preventable. And that’s really been a lot of what I’ve tried to focus on: What can we do to reduce the severity of disease? Or what can we do within the role that we play in maternal health that can reduce that?

We know that there are societal issues absolutely that increase women’s risks and there are public health issues. But there’s a role that hospitals play in helping reduce that risk. Ten years ago, I was on the maternal mortality review committee for the state of California when we started reviewing cases of women who died within hospital systems to see, “Is there a role that we can play in a hospital system to reduce that risk?”

We recognized that sometimes there were conditions that were not recognized early enough so that there was a delay in the care. Sometimes there was a misdiagnosis. Or in some hospital systems, especially rural systems where there aren’t as many resources, sometimes there was the lack of specialists available. So, we’ve identified these risks and said, “We can do something about them.”
 

Q: You served on a federal panel 20 years ago that published a groundbreaking report identifying racism in health care. It seems as if we could be much further along.

A. The purpose of that committee was to really answer the question: Do patients receive a different level of care based on race? Looking back, we knew there was something there, but we really didn’t know. And it took months for the committee to come to that agreement, that there was a difference. I mean, that was honestly monumental, because we just didn’t have that level of consensus before. And so just to say “That treatment is unequal and it’s unacceptable” was really profound.

We thought that the 700-page report was going to be a time period where there was going to be tremendous movement, and I think I’ve learned over 20 years that change doesn’t happen quickly, especially when providers and health systems don’t see that they play a role. It’s like … “OK, so maybe it exists, but not for me.”

We all saw George Floyd and how he was treated. And during COVID we saw a tremendous difference in who was dying, right? Underrepresented minorities – certainly much higher. It was that culmination that made us realize the elephant in the room. We can’t ignore that this does exist, that there is a difference in how people are treated, even in our health care system.
 

Q: When addressing racism in health care, you talk about diversifying not just the health care workforce, but also the boardrooms of hospitals and health systems. Why is that important?

A. At the board level, change is hard. But we all play a role because leadership really helps determine much of what’s carried out. So, to have a leadership that is understanding and representative of the communities they serve, I think it has been demonstrated that we do make a difference.

Q: As a health care provider, do you have a wish list of policies you’d like the government to take up?

A. There was tremendous effort around offering preventive health services as a part of what was covered under the Affordable Care Act. And individuals exhaled, finally thinking this is a tremendous win, especially for women in pregnancy. Because we fought for preventive health services to help them have access so they can prepare for their pregnancy. So, for women, this was huge. But now with the Texas federal court ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force didn’t have any authority, it is a tremendous step backward.

We have culturally, linguistically appropriate standards in place, but it’s a matter in terms of how they’re carried out by state and by individual hospital systems. My wish list is that we really do listen to our patients, speak to them in a language of their choice, and provide them written materials in the language of their choice. We don’t fully do that.
 

Q: You mentioned one Texas ruling on the ACA. What’s your take on the ruling by another Texas judge suspending the abortion pill? And the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade?A. As a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who tries to help women plan for pregnancies, those rulings are a tremendous setback.

Q: And what about women of color? Will they find access to abortion services more difficult?

A. Oh, absolutely. When we speak of underrepresented minorities or those with less resources, they have less resources to then seek the appropriate care. Some women may have the opportunity to go to a different state or seek care elsewhere if their state doesn’t provide it. Many women just don’t have those resources to devote to them and don’t have a choice. So, we will see that disparity widen.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Carolina Reyes, a Harvard-trained physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, got into medicine to help women obtain health care, especially underserved or marginalized people who face systemic racism. She’s seen progress, albeit slow, over three decades, yet the number of maternal deaths each year continues to rise.

Luckily, she’s got the ear of President Joe Biden’s health secretary.

Dr. Reyes, 64, is married to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who is championing the administration’s initiative to require all states to provide Medicaid coverage to mothers for a year after giving birth. In March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing a 40% increase in U.S. maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021. The mortality rate among Black women was 2.6 times that of white women, no matter their economic status.

Over the years, Mr. Becerra has spoken highly of his wife’s expertise, but she downplays her influence, saying her husband of nearly 35 years “had it in him to begin with” to improve health care for women and to demand fewer pregnancy-related deaths. She, too, describes the nation’s high maternal mortality rate as unacceptable and preventable.

Dr. Reyes, a Latina who grew up as one of eight children in California’s agricultural heartland, now practices perinatology at the University of California, Davis. She is a member of a California Department of Public Health panel that reviews cases of maternal deaths and recommends improvements. And she chairs the board of the California Health Care Foundation, a nonprofit that works to increase health care access. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

Her work has been a blend of medicine and advocacy, and she worries recent federal court rulings will erode hard-fought victories regarding the safety of pregnant women and their babies. She discussed the nation’s maternal health crisis and health care disparities in an interview, which has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: When did you first realize there are disparities in the health care system?

Answer: When I was in high school in the Fresno Unified School District, we were under a consent decree to desegregate. And I was, at the time, student body president at Roosevelt High School. I was asked to be on this unified school district desegregation task force, where the district had to come up with a plan.

It was a time when I really had incredible exposure to how policies are made at a larger level, societal level, that really determine where people live, where they can seek health care, where they go to school. That experience had a tremendous impact on my life in terms of what I wanted to do in a career and how to give back.
 

Q: The U.S. has one of the best health care systems in the world, yet the maternal mortality rate is high compared with other developed countries. Why do think that is?

A. What we know by the CDC and maternal mortality review committees is that about 60% of maternal deaths are considered preventable. And that’s really been a lot of what I’ve tried to focus on: What can we do to reduce the severity of disease? Or what can we do within the role that we play in maternal health that can reduce that?

We know that there are societal issues absolutely that increase women’s risks and there are public health issues. But there’s a role that hospitals play in helping reduce that risk. Ten years ago, I was on the maternal mortality review committee for the state of California when we started reviewing cases of women who died within hospital systems to see, “Is there a role that we can play in a hospital system to reduce that risk?”

We recognized that sometimes there were conditions that were not recognized early enough so that there was a delay in the care. Sometimes there was a misdiagnosis. Or in some hospital systems, especially rural systems where there aren’t as many resources, sometimes there was the lack of specialists available. So, we’ve identified these risks and said, “We can do something about them.”
 

Q: You served on a federal panel 20 years ago that published a groundbreaking report identifying racism in health care. It seems as if we could be much further along.

A. The purpose of that committee was to really answer the question: Do patients receive a different level of care based on race? Looking back, we knew there was something there, but we really didn’t know. And it took months for the committee to come to that agreement, that there was a difference. I mean, that was honestly monumental, because we just didn’t have that level of consensus before. And so just to say “That treatment is unequal and it’s unacceptable” was really profound.

We thought that the 700-page report was going to be a time period where there was going to be tremendous movement, and I think I’ve learned over 20 years that change doesn’t happen quickly, especially when providers and health systems don’t see that they play a role. It’s like … “OK, so maybe it exists, but not for me.”

We all saw George Floyd and how he was treated. And during COVID we saw a tremendous difference in who was dying, right? Underrepresented minorities – certainly much higher. It was that culmination that made us realize the elephant in the room. We can’t ignore that this does exist, that there is a difference in how people are treated, even in our health care system.
 

Q: When addressing racism in health care, you talk about diversifying not just the health care workforce, but also the boardrooms of hospitals and health systems. Why is that important?

A. At the board level, change is hard. But we all play a role because leadership really helps determine much of what’s carried out. So, to have a leadership that is understanding and representative of the communities they serve, I think it has been demonstrated that we do make a difference.

Q: As a health care provider, do you have a wish list of policies you’d like the government to take up?

A. There was tremendous effort around offering preventive health services as a part of what was covered under the Affordable Care Act. And individuals exhaled, finally thinking this is a tremendous win, especially for women in pregnancy. Because we fought for preventive health services to help them have access so they can prepare for their pregnancy. So, for women, this was huge. But now with the Texas federal court ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force didn’t have any authority, it is a tremendous step backward.

We have culturally, linguistically appropriate standards in place, but it’s a matter in terms of how they’re carried out by state and by individual hospital systems. My wish list is that we really do listen to our patients, speak to them in a language of their choice, and provide them written materials in the language of their choice. We don’t fully do that.
 

Q: You mentioned one Texas ruling on the ACA. What’s your take on the ruling by another Texas judge suspending the abortion pill? And the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade?A. As a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who tries to help women plan for pregnancies, those rulings are a tremendous setback.

Q: And what about women of color? Will they find access to abortion services more difficult?

A. Oh, absolutely. When we speak of underrepresented minorities or those with less resources, they have less resources to then seek the appropriate care. Some women may have the opportunity to go to a different state or seek care elsewhere if their state doesn’t provide it. Many women just don’t have those resources to devote to them and don’t have a choice. So, we will see that disparity widen.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Carolina Reyes, a Harvard-trained physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, got into medicine to help women obtain health care, especially underserved or marginalized people who face systemic racism. She’s seen progress, albeit slow, over three decades, yet the number of maternal deaths each year continues to rise.

Luckily, she’s got the ear of President Joe Biden’s health secretary.

Dr. Reyes, 64, is married to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who is championing the administration’s initiative to require all states to provide Medicaid coverage to mothers for a year after giving birth. In March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing a 40% increase in U.S. maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021. The mortality rate among Black women was 2.6 times that of white women, no matter their economic status.

Over the years, Mr. Becerra has spoken highly of his wife’s expertise, but she downplays her influence, saying her husband of nearly 35 years “had it in him to begin with” to improve health care for women and to demand fewer pregnancy-related deaths. She, too, describes the nation’s high maternal mortality rate as unacceptable and preventable.

Dr. Reyes, a Latina who grew up as one of eight children in California’s agricultural heartland, now practices perinatology at the University of California, Davis. She is a member of a California Department of Public Health panel that reviews cases of maternal deaths and recommends improvements. And she chairs the board of the California Health Care Foundation, a nonprofit that works to increase health care access. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

Her work has been a blend of medicine and advocacy, and she worries recent federal court rulings will erode hard-fought victories regarding the safety of pregnant women and their babies. She discussed the nation’s maternal health crisis and health care disparities in an interview, which has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: When did you first realize there are disparities in the health care system?

Answer: When I was in high school in the Fresno Unified School District, we were under a consent decree to desegregate. And I was, at the time, student body president at Roosevelt High School. I was asked to be on this unified school district desegregation task force, where the district had to come up with a plan.

It was a time when I really had incredible exposure to how policies are made at a larger level, societal level, that really determine where people live, where they can seek health care, where they go to school. That experience had a tremendous impact on my life in terms of what I wanted to do in a career and how to give back.
 

Q: The U.S. has one of the best health care systems in the world, yet the maternal mortality rate is high compared with other developed countries. Why do think that is?

A. What we know by the CDC and maternal mortality review committees is that about 60% of maternal deaths are considered preventable. And that’s really been a lot of what I’ve tried to focus on: What can we do to reduce the severity of disease? Or what can we do within the role that we play in maternal health that can reduce that?

We know that there are societal issues absolutely that increase women’s risks and there are public health issues. But there’s a role that hospitals play in helping reduce that risk. Ten years ago, I was on the maternal mortality review committee for the state of California when we started reviewing cases of women who died within hospital systems to see, “Is there a role that we can play in a hospital system to reduce that risk?”

We recognized that sometimes there were conditions that were not recognized early enough so that there was a delay in the care. Sometimes there was a misdiagnosis. Or in some hospital systems, especially rural systems where there aren’t as many resources, sometimes there was the lack of specialists available. So, we’ve identified these risks and said, “We can do something about them.”
 

Q: You served on a federal panel 20 years ago that published a groundbreaking report identifying racism in health care. It seems as if we could be much further along.

A. The purpose of that committee was to really answer the question: Do patients receive a different level of care based on race? Looking back, we knew there was something there, but we really didn’t know. And it took months for the committee to come to that agreement, that there was a difference. I mean, that was honestly monumental, because we just didn’t have that level of consensus before. And so just to say “That treatment is unequal and it’s unacceptable” was really profound.

We thought that the 700-page report was going to be a time period where there was going to be tremendous movement, and I think I’ve learned over 20 years that change doesn’t happen quickly, especially when providers and health systems don’t see that they play a role. It’s like … “OK, so maybe it exists, but not for me.”

We all saw George Floyd and how he was treated. And during COVID we saw a tremendous difference in who was dying, right? Underrepresented minorities – certainly much higher. It was that culmination that made us realize the elephant in the room. We can’t ignore that this does exist, that there is a difference in how people are treated, even in our health care system.
 

Q: When addressing racism in health care, you talk about diversifying not just the health care workforce, but also the boardrooms of hospitals and health systems. Why is that important?

A. At the board level, change is hard. But we all play a role because leadership really helps determine much of what’s carried out. So, to have a leadership that is understanding and representative of the communities they serve, I think it has been demonstrated that we do make a difference.

Q: As a health care provider, do you have a wish list of policies you’d like the government to take up?

A. There was tremendous effort around offering preventive health services as a part of what was covered under the Affordable Care Act. And individuals exhaled, finally thinking this is a tremendous win, especially for women in pregnancy. Because we fought for preventive health services to help them have access so they can prepare for their pregnancy. So, for women, this was huge. But now with the Texas federal court ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force didn’t have any authority, it is a tremendous step backward.

We have culturally, linguistically appropriate standards in place, but it’s a matter in terms of how they’re carried out by state and by individual hospital systems. My wish list is that we really do listen to our patients, speak to them in a language of their choice, and provide them written materials in the language of their choice. We don’t fully do that.
 

Q: You mentioned one Texas ruling on the ACA. What’s your take on the ruling by another Texas judge suspending the abortion pill? And the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade?A. As a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who tries to help women plan for pregnancies, those rulings are a tremendous setback.

Q: And what about women of color? Will they find access to abortion services more difficult?

A. Oh, absolutely. When we speak of underrepresented minorities or those with less resources, they have less resources to then seek the appropriate care. Some women may have the opportunity to go to a different state or seek care elsewhere if their state doesn’t provide it. Many women just don’t have those resources to devote to them and don’t have a choice. So, we will see that disparity widen.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

A review of the patient’s chemotherapy medications revealed that 4 weeks earlier, panitumumab had been added to her folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen. The physician diagnosed this acneiform eruption as an adverse effect of the panitumumab.

Panitumumab is a monoclonal antibody that works to inhibit epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) proteins that are overexpressed on some solid tumors and responsible for cancer cell proliferation. EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruptions are common in patients receiving panitumumab.

EGFR proteins have been a target of chemotherapy since the approval of the small molecule erlotinib in 2004. Panitumumab and cetuximab are monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR and improve long-term survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to other standard chemotherapy regimens. EGFR is found throughout the epidermis and all EGFR inhibitors may cause unique skin toxicity not seen with other chemotherapy agents. In 1 study of 229 patients, 59% of patients exhibited skin toxicity at Day 15; the most common examples included widespread acne-like papules and pustules or an eczema-like manifestation.¹ Eruptions may be worsened by significant sun exposure while on panitumumab. In this case, the acneiform eruption occurred more intensely along visible facial telangiectasias.

When EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruption occurs, patients commonly develop skin toxicity within the first 2 to 4 weeks of therapy. Pre-therapy doxycycline or minocycline and/or topical steroids may help prevent toxicities from occurring. These same therapies may be used to treat symptoms after they have occurred. More severe cases with systemic symptoms or failure to improve with the above measures may need prednisone or cessation of therapy.

This patient was started on topical hydrocortisone 2.5% ointment twice daily and oral doxycycline 100 mg bid for 6 weeks. She had dramatic improvement within 3 weeks. Doxycycline was subsequently continued at a dose of 100 mg/d and the patient was able to continue with her chemotherapy combination for several more months. Unfortunately, her colon cancer progressed despite therapy and she ultimately died from cancer-related complications.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

A review of the patient’s chemotherapy medications revealed that 4 weeks earlier, panitumumab had been added to her folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen. The physician diagnosed this acneiform eruption as an adverse effect of the panitumumab.

Panitumumab is a monoclonal antibody that works to inhibit epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) proteins that are overexpressed on some solid tumors and responsible for cancer cell proliferation. EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruptions are common in patients receiving panitumumab.

EGFR proteins have been a target of chemotherapy since the approval of the small molecule erlotinib in 2004. Panitumumab and cetuximab are monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR and improve long-term survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to other standard chemotherapy regimens. EGFR is found throughout the epidermis and all EGFR inhibitors may cause unique skin toxicity not seen with other chemotherapy agents. In 1 study of 229 patients, 59% of patients exhibited skin toxicity at Day 15; the most common examples included widespread acne-like papules and pustules or an eczema-like manifestation.¹ Eruptions may be worsened by significant sun exposure while on panitumumab. In this case, the acneiform eruption occurred more intensely along visible facial telangiectasias.

When EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruption occurs, patients commonly develop skin toxicity within the first 2 to 4 weeks of therapy. Pre-therapy doxycycline or minocycline and/or topical steroids may help prevent toxicities from occurring. These same therapies may be used to treat symptoms after they have occurred. More severe cases with systemic symptoms or failure to improve with the above measures may need prednisone or cessation of therapy.

This patient was started on topical hydrocortisone 2.5% ointment twice daily and oral doxycycline 100 mg bid for 6 weeks. She had dramatic improvement within 3 weeks. Doxycycline was subsequently continued at a dose of 100 mg/d and the patient was able to continue with her chemotherapy combination for several more months. Unfortunately, her colon cancer progressed despite therapy and she ultimately died from cancer-related complications.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

A review of the patient’s chemotherapy medications revealed that 4 weeks earlier, panitumumab had been added to her folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen. The physician diagnosed this acneiform eruption as an adverse effect of the panitumumab.

Panitumumab is a monoclonal antibody that works to inhibit epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) proteins that are overexpressed on some solid tumors and responsible for cancer cell proliferation. EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruptions are common in patients receiving panitumumab.

EGFR proteins have been a target of chemotherapy since the approval of the small molecule erlotinib in 2004. Panitumumab and cetuximab are monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR and improve long-term survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to other standard chemotherapy regimens. EGFR is found throughout the epidermis and all EGFR inhibitors may cause unique skin toxicity not seen with other chemotherapy agents. In 1 study of 229 patients, 59% of patients exhibited skin toxicity at Day 15; the most common examples included widespread acne-like papules and pustules or an eczema-like manifestation.¹ Eruptions may be worsened by significant sun exposure while on panitumumab. In this case, the acneiform eruption occurred more intensely along visible facial telangiectasias.

When EGFR inhibitor–induced acneiform eruption occurs, patients commonly develop skin toxicity within the first 2 to 4 weeks of therapy. Pre-therapy doxycycline or minocycline and/or topical steroids may help prevent toxicities from occurring. These same therapies may be used to treat symptoms after they have occurred. More severe cases with systemic symptoms or failure to improve with the above measures may need prednisone or cessation of therapy.

This patient was started on topical hydrocortisone 2.5% ointment twice daily and oral doxycycline 100 mg bid for 6 weeks. She had dramatic improvement within 3 weeks. Doxycycline was subsequently continued at a dose of 100 mg/d and the patient was able to continue with her chemotherapy combination for several more months. Unfortunately, her colon cancer progressed despite therapy and she ultimately died from cancer-related complications.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Cancer research has made big strides over the past few decades, leading to better prevention efforts, improved treatment options, and longer survival. Despite the significant progress, there is still a lot of work to do. 

In an article published in Cell, cancer specialists from across the globe provided their take on the big questions worth exploring in research over the coming years.

More sex-specific research

Sherene Loi, MBBS, PhD, head of the Translational Breast Cancer Genomics and Therapeutics Laboratory at the MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said there needs to be more research on the differences in immune-related adverse events and immune responses between the sexes.

Dr. Loi’s recent research in mouse models has revealed that immune checkpoint inhibitors can lead to reduced oocyte reserves, and if those insights are validated in humans, it could have big implications for women of childbearing age who may face premature menopause and infertility.

“It is astonishing to realize that very little research has been done to investigate the long-term reproductive or fertility consequences of new agents we investigate in the phase 3 setting and then prescribe routinely in the curative setting,” Dr. Loi said. 
 

The global cancer community

C. S. Pramesh, MMBS, MS, FRCS, director of Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, India, said that cancer research should prioritize global experiences, instead of focusing so heavily on high-income countries such as the United States.

“With much of the cancer burden likely to fall on low- and middle-income countries, it seems incongruous that almost 90% of cancer research currently takes place in high-income countries,” Dr. Pramesh said. “Neither the discordance between the cancer burden and research funding in high-income countries nor the types of problems or solutions addressed in these countries are relevant to the majority of patients with cancer in the world.”

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, has discussed a similar need to prioritize cancer care in low- and middle-income countries, what he has dubbed “cancer groundshot.”

Dr. Pramesh described a brainstorming session among colleagues with global cancer expertise in which they identified five broad themes especially relevant to a global community. These themes include reducing the burden of patients presenting with advanced disease as well as improving access, affordability, and outcomes through solution-oriented research – goals that are critical but often not prioritized by high-income countries or industry, he said.

“Now is the time for the global community to wake up, take notice, and change the direction of cancer research for the larger public good,” Dr. Pramesh said.
 

Prioritizing combination therapies

The next big focus in cancer research should be to develop effective combination therapies, according to René Bernards, PhD, of The Netherlands Cancer Institute.

“Resistance to therapy remains a major obstacle in the treatment of cancer,” Dr. Bernards said. But, as the AIDS pandemic has taught us, the use of multiple drugs with “nonoverlapping resistance mechanisms can make a deadly disease with a high mutation rate chronic.”

A growing body of evidence highlights the relevance of this strategy to oncology. A recent study, for instance, highlighted the effectiveness of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat advanced melanoma. 

“I believe that academic researchers can deliver more clinical benefit to patients by focusing on finding highly effective combinations of existing drugs than by searching for more drug targets,” he said. “Over time, this would also contribute to affordable health care through use of more generic drugs.”
 

Cancer drugs and the heart

Cardiologist Javid Moslehi, MD, who specializes in the cardiovascular health of patients with cancer, believes cardio-oncology should be the next frontier. During his research fellowship, Dr. Moslehi discovered that “many novel cancer therapies were leading to cardiovascular adverse effects, both during treatment and survivorship.”

But, Dr. Moslehi explained, “we are entering [uncharted] waters.”

Patients who receive immune checkpoint inhibitors may, for instance, develop fulminant myocarditis. Dr. Moslehi and colleagues have also found in preclinical models that abatacept (CTLA4-Ig) may be an effective treatment for myocarditis.

“Because of the targeted nature of new cancer therapies, cardiovascular sequelae may provide insights into cardiac biology, making cardio-oncology a novel platform for cardiovascular investigation,” Dr. Moslehi explained.
 

Inside rare cancers

William Sellers, MD, director of the Broad Institute of MIT’s Cancer Program, Cambridge, Mass., said rare cancers should be the next focus.

After all, “rare cancers are only rare in isolation,” Dr. Sellers said, noting that these cancers make up 20%-24% of all cancer diagnoses.

Although funding for rare cancer research remains limited, investing more could benefit patients in the long run. In early 2023, Pfizer announced plans to explore more options for early stage treatments for rare diseases and cancers. 

“New initiatives supporting direct-to-patient cohort enrollment bridging geographic fragmentation and rare cancer model development, enabling preclinical research to accelerate, are the first steps along a path toward curing these diseases,” he said. 

The researchers reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

Cancer research has made big strides over the past few decades, leading to better prevention efforts, improved treatment options, and longer survival. Despite the significant progress, there is still a lot of work to do. 

In an article published in Cell, cancer specialists from across the globe provided their take on the big questions worth exploring in research over the coming years.

More sex-specific research

Sherene Loi, MBBS, PhD, head of the Translational Breast Cancer Genomics and Therapeutics Laboratory at the MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said there needs to be more research on the differences in immune-related adverse events and immune responses between the sexes.

Dr. Loi’s recent research in mouse models has revealed that immune checkpoint inhibitors can lead to reduced oocyte reserves, and if those insights are validated in humans, it could have big implications for women of childbearing age who may face premature menopause and infertility.

“It is astonishing to realize that very little research has been done to investigate the long-term reproductive or fertility consequences of new agents we investigate in the phase 3 setting and then prescribe routinely in the curative setting,” Dr. Loi said. 
 

The global cancer community

C. S. Pramesh, MMBS, MS, FRCS, director of Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, India, said that cancer research should prioritize global experiences, instead of focusing so heavily on high-income countries such as the United States.

“With much of the cancer burden likely to fall on low- and middle-income countries, it seems incongruous that almost 90% of cancer research currently takes place in high-income countries,” Dr. Pramesh said. “Neither the discordance between the cancer burden and research funding in high-income countries nor the types of problems or solutions addressed in these countries are relevant to the majority of patients with cancer in the world.”

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, has discussed a similar need to prioritize cancer care in low- and middle-income countries, what he has dubbed “cancer groundshot.”

Dr. Pramesh described a brainstorming session among colleagues with global cancer expertise in which they identified five broad themes especially relevant to a global community. These themes include reducing the burden of patients presenting with advanced disease as well as improving access, affordability, and outcomes through solution-oriented research – goals that are critical but often not prioritized by high-income countries or industry, he said.

“Now is the time for the global community to wake up, take notice, and change the direction of cancer research for the larger public good,” Dr. Pramesh said.
 

Prioritizing combination therapies

The next big focus in cancer research should be to develop effective combination therapies, according to René Bernards, PhD, of The Netherlands Cancer Institute.

“Resistance to therapy remains a major obstacle in the treatment of cancer,” Dr. Bernards said. But, as the AIDS pandemic has taught us, the use of multiple drugs with “nonoverlapping resistance mechanisms can make a deadly disease with a high mutation rate chronic.”

A growing body of evidence highlights the relevance of this strategy to oncology. A recent study, for instance, highlighted the effectiveness of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat advanced melanoma. 

“I believe that academic researchers can deliver more clinical benefit to patients by focusing on finding highly effective combinations of existing drugs than by searching for more drug targets,” he said. “Over time, this would also contribute to affordable health care through use of more generic drugs.”
 

Cancer drugs and the heart

Cardiologist Javid Moslehi, MD, who specializes in the cardiovascular health of patients with cancer, believes cardio-oncology should be the next frontier. During his research fellowship, Dr. Moslehi discovered that “many novel cancer therapies were leading to cardiovascular adverse effects, both during treatment and survivorship.”

But, Dr. Moslehi explained, “we are entering [uncharted] waters.”

Patients who receive immune checkpoint inhibitors may, for instance, develop fulminant myocarditis. Dr. Moslehi and colleagues have also found in preclinical models that abatacept (CTLA4-Ig) may be an effective treatment for myocarditis.

“Because of the targeted nature of new cancer therapies, cardiovascular sequelae may provide insights into cardiac biology, making cardio-oncology a novel platform for cardiovascular investigation,” Dr. Moslehi explained.
 

Inside rare cancers

William Sellers, MD, director of the Broad Institute of MIT’s Cancer Program, Cambridge, Mass., said rare cancers should be the next focus.

After all, “rare cancers are only rare in isolation,” Dr. Sellers said, noting that these cancers make up 20%-24% of all cancer diagnoses.

Although funding for rare cancer research remains limited, investing more could benefit patients in the long run. In early 2023, Pfizer announced plans to explore more options for early stage treatments for rare diseases and cancers. 

“New initiatives supporting direct-to-patient cohort enrollment bridging geographic fragmentation and rare cancer model development, enabling preclinical research to accelerate, are the first steps along a path toward curing these diseases,” he said. 

The researchers reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

Cancer research has made big strides over the past few decades, leading to better prevention efforts, improved treatment options, and longer survival. Despite the significant progress, there is still a lot of work to do. 

In an article published in Cell, cancer specialists from across the globe provided their take on the big questions worth exploring in research over the coming years.

More sex-specific research

Sherene Loi, MBBS, PhD, head of the Translational Breast Cancer Genomics and Therapeutics Laboratory at the MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said there needs to be more research on the differences in immune-related adverse events and immune responses between the sexes.

Dr. Loi’s recent research in mouse models has revealed that immune checkpoint inhibitors can lead to reduced oocyte reserves, and if those insights are validated in humans, it could have big implications for women of childbearing age who may face premature menopause and infertility.

“It is astonishing to realize that very little research has been done to investigate the long-term reproductive or fertility consequences of new agents we investigate in the phase 3 setting and then prescribe routinely in the curative setting,” Dr. Loi said. 
 

The global cancer community

C. S. Pramesh, MMBS, MS, FRCS, director of Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, India, said that cancer research should prioritize global experiences, instead of focusing so heavily on high-income countries such as the United States.

“With much of the cancer burden likely to fall on low- and middle-income countries, it seems incongruous that almost 90% of cancer research currently takes place in high-income countries,” Dr. Pramesh said. “Neither the discordance between the cancer burden and research funding in high-income countries nor the types of problems or solutions addressed in these countries are relevant to the majority of patients with cancer in the world.”

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, has discussed a similar need to prioritize cancer care in low- and middle-income countries, what he has dubbed “cancer groundshot.”

Dr. Pramesh described a brainstorming session among colleagues with global cancer expertise in which they identified five broad themes especially relevant to a global community. These themes include reducing the burden of patients presenting with advanced disease as well as improving access, affordability, and outcomes through solution-oriented research – goals that are critical but often not prioritized by high-income countries or industry, he said.

“Now is the time for the global community to wake up, take notice, and change the direction of cancer research for the larger public good,” Dr. Pramesh said.
 

Prioritizing combination therapies

The next big focus in cancer research should be to develop effective combination therapies, according to René Bernards, PhD, of The Netherlands Cancer Institute.

“Resistance to therapy remains a major obstacle in the treatment of cancer,” Dr. Bernards said. But, as the AIDS pandemic has taught us, the use of multiple drugs with “nonoverlapping resistance mechanisms can make a deadly disease with a high mutation rate chronic.”

A growing body of evidence highlights the relevance of this strategy to oncology. A recent study, for instance, highlighted the effectiveness of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat advanced melanoma. 

“I believe that academic researchers can deliver more clinical benefit to patients by focusing on finding highly effective combinations of existing drugs than by searching for more drug targets,” he said. “Over time, this would also contribute to affordable health care through use of more generic drugs.”
 

Cancer drugs and the heart

Cardiologist Javid Moslehi, MD, who specializes in the cardiovascular health of patients with cancer, believes cardio-oncology should be the next frontier. During his research fellowship, Dr. Moslehi discovered that “many novel cancer therapies were leading to cardiovascular adverse effects, both during treatment and survivorship.”

But, Dr. Moslehi explained, “we are entering [uncharted] waters.”

Patients who receive immune checkpoint inhibitors may, for instance, develop fulminant myocarditis. Dr. Moslehi and colleagues have also found in preclinical models that abatacept (CTLA4-Ig) may be an effective treatment for myocarditis.

“Because of the targeted nature of new cancer therapies, cardiovascular sequelae may provide insights into cardiac biology, making cardio-oncology a novel platform for cardiovascular investigation,” Dr. Moslehi explained.
 

Inside rare cancers

William Sellers, MD, director of the Broad Institute of MIT’s Cancer Program, Cambridge, Mass., said rare cancers should be the next focus.

After all, “rare cancers are only rare in isolation,” Dr. Sellers said, noting that these cancers make up 20%-24% of all cancer diagnoses.

Although funding for rare cancer research remains limited, investing more could benefit patients in the long run. In early 2023, Pfizer announced plans to explore more options for early stage treatments for rare diseases and cancers. 

“New initiatives supporting direct-to-patient cohort enrollment bridging geographic fragmentation and rare cancer model development, enabling preclinical research to accelerate, are the first steps along a path toward curing these diseases,” he said. 

The researchers reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

An old dog – nitrous oxide – can learn new tricks, managing pain in men undergoing transrectal biopsies, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

“At concentrations of less than 50%, nitrous oxide is classified as a minimal sedative, making it a promising option for many urologic outpatient procedures such as prostate biopsies,” said Heidi Rayala, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who helped conduct the study.

Nitrous oxide is best known as a pain medication and anesthetic during dental procedures and childbirth, after trauma, and in end-of-life care.

In the new study, Dr. Rayala and her colleagues at Harvard and Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, randomly assigned 128 men to self-administered nitrous oxide (SANO) or oxygen as a placebo. Patients in the SANO group had a smaller change in post-biopsy pain score (Visual Analog Scale for pain, 0.43 vs. 1.03; P = .03) and lower odds of experiencing pain during the procedure (odds ratio, 0.45; confidence interval, 0.21-0.97; P = .04).

A comparison of anxiety scores in the two groups failed to find a statistically significant difference between SANO and placebo. However, more men who received nitrous oxide said they tolerated the procedure “better than expected” (61% vs. 41%; P = 0.02), according to the researchers.

Dr. Rayala said that the researchers used the Nitrouseal system (Sedation Systems), in which the patient holds a mask to their face and works with staff to adjust the gas levels to the desired amount. The system is governed to max out at 50% nitrous oxide, ensuring “minimal sedation concentrations, so anesthesia personnel are not required,” she said.

“At levels of less than 50%, patients respond normally to verbal commands and maintain normal airway reflexes,” Dr. Rayala added. “This provides an advantage in that patients do not require the presence of anesthesia personnel.” And because the body eliminates the gas within about 5 minutes, patients do not require an escort home, she said.

This system is also self-scavenging to protect the operating urologist and other personnel from environmental exposure to nitrous oxide.

Dr. Rayala said that three patients (2.3%) found the mask uncomfortable, but in follow-up studies the clinicians have done a better job of preparing patients for the feeling of the mask, making a marked difference. Headaches and nausea are the most commonly reported complaints at concentrations above 50%.

“We did not have patients report headaches or nausea in new study (by the BIDMC group),” she said. This study has been submitted for publication.

Clinicians outside the United States have been quicker to embrace nitrous oxide for prostate procedures.

In a randomized controlled trial, researchers in Australia found no significant improvement in pain scores at 15 minutes from the use of nitrous oxide during transrectal biopsies; however, improvements were seen in patient-reported discomfort, overall experience, and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies.

Stephen McCombie, MD, a consultant at Perth Urology Clinic, Australia, who has been adapting the nitrous oxide protocol for transrectal biopsies to transperineal procedures, said that the Beth Israel study “adds to the evidence to support adjunct use of mild inhalational anesthetics and analgesics during prostate biopsies to improve the patient experience of the procedure.”

He said that the role for these agents may grow with the global trend away from transrectal prostate biopsies and toward transperineal biopsies, largely driven by increasing rates of sepsis after transrectal biopsies.

“While transperineal biopsies can be more painful then transrectal biopsies when performed under local anesthesia, perhaps due to biopsies being taken through the highly sensate perineum as opposed to above the dentate line, optimization of the technique can significantly reduce the discomfort associated with the procedure, which may be further reduced with these agents,” Dr. McCombie said.

“Studies indicate that transperineal biopsies can be more painful than the traditional transrectal biopsies,” Dr. Rayala said. “We do offer transperineal biopsies at BIDMC, and we are gearing up to repeat the SANO study” for those patients.

Dr. Rayala and Dr. McCombie have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An old dog – nitrous oxide – can learn new tricks, managing pain in men undergoing transrectal biopsies, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

“At concentrations of less than 50%, nitrous oxide is classified as a minimal sedative, making it a promising option for many urologic outpatient procedures such as prostate biopsies,” said Heidi Rayala, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who helped conduct the study.

Nitrous oxide is best known as a pain medication and anesthetic during dental procedures and childbirth, after trauma, and in end-of-life care.

In the new study, Dr. Rayala and her colleagues at Harvard and Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, randomly assigned 128 men to self-administered nitrous oxide (SANO) or oxygen as a placebo. Patients in the SANO group had a smaller change in post-biopsy pain score (Visual Analog Scale for pain, 0.43 vs. 1.03; P = .03) and lower odds of experiencing pain during the procedure (odds ratio, 0.45; confidence interval, 0.21-0.97; P = .04).

A comparison of anxiety scores in the two groups failed to find a statistically significant difference between SANO and placebo. However, more men who received nitrous oxide said they tolerated the procedure “better than expected” (61% vs. 41%; P = 0.02), according to the researchers.

Dr. Rayala said that the researchers used the Nitrouseal system (Sedation Systems), in which the patient holds a mask to their face and works with staff to adjust the gas levels to the desired amount. The system is governed to max out at 50% nitrous oxide, ensuring “minimal sedation concentrations, so anesthesia personnel are not required,” she said.

“At levels of less than 50%, patients respond normally to verbal commands and maintain normal airway reflexes,” Dr. Rayala added. “This provides an advantage in that patients do not require the presence of anesthesia personnel.” And because the body eliminates the gas within about 5 minutes, patients do not require an escort home, she said.

This system is also self-scavenging to protect the operating urologist and other personnel from environmental exposure to nitrous oxide.

Dr. Rayala said that three patients (2.3%) found the mask uncomfortable, but in follow-up studies the clinicians have done a better job of preparing patients for the feeling of the mask, making a marked difference. Headaches and nausea are the most commonly reported complaints at concentrations above 50%.

“We did not have patients report headaches or nausea in new study (by the BIDMC group),” she said. This study has been submitted for publication.

Clinicians outside the United States have been quicker to embrace nitrous oxide for prostate procedures.

In a randomized controlled trial, researchers in Australia found no significant improvement in pain scores at 15 minutes from the use of nitrous oxide during transrectal biopsies; however, improvements were seen in patient-reported discomfort, overall experience, and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies.

Stephen McCombie, MD, a consultant at Perth Urology Clinic, Australia, who has been adapting the nitrous oxide protocol for transrectal biopsies to transperineal procedures, said that the Beth Israel study “adds to the evidence to support adjunct use of mild inhalational anesthetics and analgesics during prostate biopsies to improve the patient experience of the procedure.”

He said that the role for these agents may grow with the global trend away from transrectal prostate biopsies and toward transperineal biopsies, largely driven by increasing rates of sepsis after transrectal biopsies.

“While transperineal biopsies can be more painful then transrectal biopsies when performed under local anesthesia, perhaps due to biopsies being taken through the highly sensate perineum as opposed to above the dentate line, optimization of the technique can significantly reduce the discomfort associated with the procedure, which may be further reduced with these agents,” Dr. McCombie said.

“Studies indicate that transperineal biopsies can be more painful than the traditional transrectal biopsies,” Dr. Rayala said. “We do offer transperineal biopsies at BIDMC, and we are gearing up to repeat the SANO study” for those patients.

Dr. Rayala and Dr. McCombie have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An old dog – nitrous oxide – can learn new tricks, managing pain in men undergoing transrectal biopsies, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

“At concentrations of less than 50%, nitrous oxide is classified as a minimal sedative, making it a promising option for many urologic outpatient procedures such as prostate biopsies,” said Heidi Rayala, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who helped conduct the study.

Nitrous oxide is best known as a pain medication and anesthetic during dental procedures and childbirth, after trauma, and in end-of-life care.

In the new study, Dr. Rayala and her colleagues at Harvard and Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, randomly assigned 128 men to self-administered nitrous oxide (SANO) or oxygen as a placebo. Patients in the SANO group had a smaller change in post-biopsy pain score (Visual Analog Scale for pain, 0.43 vs. 1.03; P = .03) and lower odds of experiencing pain during the procedure (odds ratio, 0.45; confidence interval, 0.21-0.97; P = .04).

A comparison of anxiety scores in the two groups failed to find a statistically significant difference between SANO and placebo. However, more men who received nitrous oxide said they tolerated the procedure “better than expected” (61% vs. 41%; P = 0.02), according to the researchers.

Dr. Rayala said that the researchers used the Nitrouseal system (Sedation Systems), in which the patient holds a mask to their face and works with staff to adjust the gas levels to the desired amount. The system is governed to max out at 50% nitrous oxide, ensuring “minimal sedation concentrations, so anesthesia personnel are not required,” she said.

“At levels of less than 50%, patients respond normally to verbal commands and maintain normal airway reflexes,” Dr. Rayala added. “This provides an advantage in that patients do not require the presence of anesthesia personnel.” And because the body eliminates the gas within about 5 minutes, patients do not require an escort home, she said.

This system is also self-scavenging to protect the operating urologist and other personnel from environmental exposure to nitrous oxide.

Dr. Rayala said that three patients (2.3%) found the mask uncomfortable, but in follow-up studies the clinicians have done a better job of preparing patients for the feeling of the mask, making a marked difference. Headaches and nausea are the most commonly reported complaints at concentrations above 50%.

“We did not have patients report headaches or nausea in new study (by the BIDMC group),” she said. This study has been submitted for publication.

Clinicians outside the United States have been quicker to embrace nitrous oxide for prostate procedures.

In a randomized controlled trial, researchers in Australia found no significant improvement in pain scores at 15 minutes from the use of nitrous oxide during transrectal biopsies; however, improvements were seen in patient-reported discomfort, overall experience, and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies.

Stephen McCombie, MD, a consultant at Perth Urology Clinic, Australia, who has been adapting the nitrous oxide protocol for transrectal biopsies to transperineal procedures, said that the Beth Israel study “adds to the evidence to support adjunct use of mild inhalational anesthetics and analgesics during prostate biopsies to improve the patient experience of the procedure.”

He said that the role for these agents may grow with the global trend away from transrectal prostate biopsies and toward transperineal biopsies, largely driven by increasing rates of sepsis after transrectal biopsies.

“While transperineal biopsies can be more painful then transrectal biopsies when performed under local anesthesia, perhaps due to biopsies being taken through the highly sensate perineum as opposed to above the dentate line, optimization of the technique can significantly reduce the discomfort associated with the procedure, which may be further reduced with these agents,” Dr. McCombie said.

“Studies indicate that transperineal biopsies can be more painful than the traditional transrectal biopsies,” Dr. Rayala said. “We do offer transperineal biopsies at BIDMC, and we are gearing up to repeat the SANO study” for those patients.

Dr. Rayala and Dr. McCombie have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A panel of independent advisers recently almost unanimously recommended to restrict a new indication for olaparib (Lynparza) alongside abiraterone (Zytiga) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

On April 28, members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 11 to 1, with one abstention, that only patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation should receive olaparib as part of the combination first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Olaparib is already cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for various ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancer indications as well as later-line use in certain more advanced prostate cancers. AstraZeneca recently applied for an additional, broad indication for the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor as an initial therapy that would include patients without BRCA or homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations.

In reviewing the application, the FDA raised concerns about this broad new indication, highlighting limitations in the key research used to justify the expanded use and highlighting how olaparib may amount to a “toxic placebo,” a phrase agency staff used in their briefing document.

Given these concerns, the FDA reviewers asked the independent ODAC panel to vote on the following question: “As FDA reviews the proposed indication for olaparib in combination with abiraterone for initial treatment of [metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer], should the indication be restricted to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation?”

The ODAC panel voted 11 to 1 in favor of a restricted expansion of olaparib plus abiraterone and prednisone or prednisolone to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation. One member – Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute – abstained. The FDA staff asked panelists to abstain if they felt the combination treatment should not be approved for any indication.

Overall, the ODAC panel agreed with the FDA staff’s criticism of the research supporting the application: the PROpel study. The trial randomized 796 patients with previously untreated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to olaparib plus abiraterone or abiraterone plus placebo. The median time for radiographic progression-free survival – the study’s primary endpoint – was nearly 25 months in the olaparib group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group.

The combination also demonstrated a 19% reduced risk of death, which was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .0544), and a median improvement of 7.4 months in the combination arm (42.1 vs. 34.7 months).

Although the study met its primary endpoint, the results were difficult to interpret given the lack of information about genetic variability in the participants’ tumors. Participants were not prospectively assessed for either BRCA or HRR status. But given the importance of BRCA status as a predictive biomarker for PARP inhibitor efficacy, “this trial design would be considered inappropriate today as the biomarker should have been prospectively evaluated,” the FDA wrote in its briefing document.

In a post hoc analysis performed by the FDA, the agency found that BRCA-positive patients accounted for most of the survival benefit of the combination, though made up only 11% of the PROpel population.

That meant the ODAC members were being asked to evaluate a drug based on “suboptimal data” resulting from a “suboptimal study design,” said Dr. Madan, who is head of the prostate cancer clinical research section in the NCI’s Center for Cancer Research.

Dr. Madan also emphasized concerns the FDA raised about the potential harms for patients whose prostate cancer was not tied to BRCA mutations. In the FDA’s briefing document, the agency said patients treated in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer setting generally have few symptoms at baseline. Adding olaparib among patients lacking the BRCA mutation could expose them to a drug with known side effects but minimal chance to help them.

The PROpel trial also found that patients who received olaparib and abiraterone experienced greater toxicity than those who received abiraterone. These adverse events included venous thromboembolic events, myelosuppression, requirement for blood transfusions, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

Although the FDA is not compelled to follow the recommendations of its advisory committees, it often does.

AstraZeneca expressed some disappointment about the recommendation in a press release. Susan Galbraith, executive vice president of Oncology R&D at AstraZeneca, said, “while we are pleased with the recognition of the benefit of Lynparza plus abiraterone for patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, we are disappointed with the outcome of today’s ODAC meeting. We strongly believe in the results of the PROpel trial, which demonstrated the clinically meaningful benefit for this combination in a broad population of patients regardless of biomarker status.”

One ODAC member, Jorge J. Nieva, MD, did support the expanded approval for olaparib, casting the single “no” vote. Dr. Nieva, an oncologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, disagreed with the FDA’s question about limiting use of the olaparib-abiraterone combination to patients with known BRCA mutations, citing the positive result from the PROpel trial.

People are aware that olaparib provides a great deal more benefit in the BRCA-positive group and may give “only minimal benefit if these tests are not positive,” but “these risks and benefits can be addressed at the patient and physician level,” he said.

But Terrence M. Kungel, MBA, who served as ODAC’s patient representative for the meeting, offered a counterpoint to Dr. Nieva’s assessment. Patients now often struggle to assess the options available to them and then pay for these medicines, with financial toxicity affecting many people with cancer.

“Prostate cancer patients need more treatments that are effective, not more choices,” said Mr. Kungel, who voted with the majority.

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

A panel of independent advisers recently almost unanimously recommended to restrict a new indication for olaparib (Lynparza) alongside abiraterone (Zytiga) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

On April 28, members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 11 to 1, with one abstention, that only patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation should receive olaparib as part of the combination first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Olaparib is already cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for various ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancer indications as well as later-line use in certain more advanced prostate cancers. AstraZeneca recently applied for an additional, broad indication for the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor as an initial therapy that would include patients without BRCA or homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations.

In reviewing the application, the FDA raised concerns about this broad new indication, highlighting limitations in the key research used to justify the expanded use and highlighting how olaparib may amount to a “toxic placebo,” a phrase agency staff used in their briefing document.

Given these concerns, the FDA reviewers asked the independent ODAC panel to vote on the following question: “As FDA reviews the proposed indication for olaparib in combination with abiraterone for initial treatment of [metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer], should the indication be restricted to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation?”

The ODAC panel voted 11 to 1 in favor of a restricted expansion of olaparib plus abiraterone and prednisone or prednisolone to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation. One member – Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute – abstained. The FDA staff asked panelists to abstain if they felt the combination treatment should not be approved for any indication.

Overall, the ODAC panel agreed with the FDA staff’s criticism of the research supporting the application: the PROpel study. The trial randomized 796 patients with previously untreated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to olaparib plus abiraterone or abiraterone plus placebo. The median time for radiographic progression-free survival – the study’s primary endpoint – was nearly 25 months in the olaparib group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group.

The combination also demonstrated a 19% reduced risk of death, which was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .0544), and a median improvement of 7.4 months in the combination arm (42.1 vs. 34.7 months).

Although the study met its primary endpoint, the results were difficult to interpret given the lack of information about genetic variability in the participants’ tumors. Participants were not prospectively assessed for either BRCA or HRR status. But given the importance of BRCA status as a predictive biomarker for PARP inhibitor efficacy, “this trial design would be considered inappropriate today as the biomarker should have been prospectively evaluated,” the FDA wrote in its briefing document.

In a post hoc analysis performed by the FDA, the agency found that BRCA-positive patients accounted for most of the survival benefit of the combination, though made up only 11% of the PROpel population.

That meant the ODAC members were being asked to evaluate a drug based on “suboptimal data” resulting from a “suboptimal study design,” said Dr. Madan, who is head of the prostate cancer clinical research section in the NCI’s Center for Cancer Research.

Dr. Madan also emphasized concerns the FDA raised about the potential harms for patients whose prostate cancer was not tied to BRCA mutations. In the FDA’s briefing document, the agency said patients treated in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer setting generally have few symptoms at baseline. Adding olaparib among patients lacking the BRCA mutation could expose them to a drug with known side effects but minimal chance to help them.

The PROpel trial also found that patients who received olaparib and abiraterone experienced greater toxicity than those who received abiraterone. These adverse events included venous thromboembolic events, myelosuppression, requirement for blood transfusions, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

Although the FDA is not compelled to follow the recommendations of its advisory committees, it often does.

AstraZeneca expressed some disappointment about the recommendation in a press release. Susan Galbraith, executive vice president of Oncology R&D at AstraZeneca, said, “while we are pleased with the recognition of the benefit of Lynparza plus abiraterone for patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, we are disappointed with the outcome of today’s ODAC meeting. We strongly believe in the results of the PROpel trial, which demonstrated the clinically meaningful benefit for this combination in a broad population of patients regardless of biomarker status.”

One ODAC member, Jorge J. Nieva, MD, did support the expanded approval for olaparib, casting the single “no” vote. Dr. Nieva, an oncologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, disagreed with the FDA’s question about limiting use of the olaparib-abiraterone combination to patients with known BRCA mutations, citing the positive result from the PROpel trial.

People are aware that olaparib provides a great deal more benefit in the BRCA-positive group and may give “only minimal benefit if these tests are not positive,” but “these risks and benefits can be addressed at the patient and physician level,” he said.

But Terrence M. Kungel, MBA, who served as ODAC’s patient representative for the meeting, offered a counterpoint to Dr. Nieva’s assessment. Patients now often struggle to assess the options available to them and then pay for these medicines, with financial toxicity affecting many people with cancer.

“Prostate cancer patients need more treatments that are effective, not more choices,” said Mr. Kungel, who voted with the majority.

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

A panel of independent advisers recently almost unanimously recommended to restrict a new indication for olaparib (Lynparza) alongside abiraterone (Zytiga) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

On April 28, members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 11 to 1, with one abstention, that only patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation should receive olaparib as part of the combination first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Olaparib is already cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for various ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancer indications as well as later-line use in certain more advanced prostate cancers. AstraZeneca recently applied for an additional, broad indication for the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor as an initial therapy that would include patients without BRCA or homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations.

In reviewing the application, the FDA raised concerns about this broad new indication, highlighting limitations in the key research used to justify the expanded use and highlighting how olaparib may amount to a “toxic placebo,” a phrase agency staff used in their briefing document.

Given these concerns, the FDA reviewers asked the independent ODAC panel to vote on the following question: “As FDA reviews the proposed indication for olaparib in combination with abiraterone for initial treatment of [metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer], should the indication be restricted to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation?”

The ODAC panel voted 11 to 1 in favor of a restricted expansion of olaparib plus abiraterone and prednisone or prednisolone to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation. One member – Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute – abstained. The FDA staff asked panelists to abstain if they felt the combination treatment should not be approved for any indication.

Overall, the ODAC panel agreed with the FDA staff’s criticism of the research supporting the application: the PROpel study. The trial randomized 796 patients with previously untreated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to olaparib plus abiraterone or abiraterone plus placebo. The median time for radiographic progression-free survival – the study’s primary endpoint – was nearly 25 months in the olaparib group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group.

The combination also demonstrated a 19% reduced risk of death, which was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .0544), and a median improvement of 7.4 months in the combination arm (42.1 vs. 34.7 months).

Although the study met its primary endpoint, the results were difficult to interpret given the lack of information about genetic variability in the participants’ tumors. Participants were not prospectively assessed for either BRCA or HRR status. But given the importance of BRCA status as a predictive biomarker for PARP inhibitor efficacy, “this trial design would be considered inappropriate today as the biomarker should have been prospectively evaluated,” the FDA wrote in its briefing document.

In a post hoc analysis performed by the FDA, the agency found that BRCA-positive patients accounted for most of the survival benefit of the combination, though made up only 11% of the PROpel population.

That meant the ODAC members were being asked to evaluate a drug based on “suboptimal data” resulting from a “suboptimal study design,” said Dr. Madan, who is head of the prostate cancer clinical research section in the NCI’s Center for Cancer Research.

Dr. Madan also emphasized concerns the FDA raised about the potential harms for patients whose prostate cancer was not tied to BRCA mutations. In the FDA’s briefing document, the agency said patients treated in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer setting generally have few symptoms at baseline. Adding olaparib among patients lacking the BRCA mutation could expose them to a drug with known side effects but minimal chance to help them.

The PROpel trial also found that patients who received olaparib and abiraterone experienced greater toxicity than those who received abiraterone. These adverse events included venous thromboembolic events, myelosuppression, requirement for blood transfusions, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

Although the FDA is not compelled to follow the recommendations of its advisory committees, it often does.

AstraZeneca expressed some disappointment about the recommendation in a press release. Susan Galbraith, executive vice president of Oncology R&D at AstraZeneca, said, “while we are pleased with the recognition of the benefit of Lynparza plus abiraterone for patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, we are disappointed with the outcome of today’s ODAC meeting. We strongly believe in the results of the PROpel trial, which demonstrated the clinically meaningful benefit for this combination in a broad population of patients regardless of biomarker status.”

One ODAC member, Jorge J. Nieva, MD, did support the expanded approval for olaparib, casting the single “no” vote. Dr. Nieva, an oncologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, disagreed with the FDA’s question about limiting use of the olaparib-abiraterone combination to patients with known BRCA mutations, citing the positive result from the PROpel trial.

People are aware that olaparib provides a great deal more benefit in the BRCA-positive group and may give “only minimal benefit if these tests are not positive,” but “these risks and benefits can be addressed at the patient and physician level,” he said.

But Terrence M. Kungel, MBA, who served as ODAC’s patient representative for the meeting, offered a counterpoint to Dr. Nieva’s assessment. Patients now often struggle to assess the options available to them and then pay for these medicines, with financial toxicity affecting many people with cancer.

“Prostate cancer patients need more treatments that are effective, not more choices,” said Mr. Kungel, who voted with the majority.

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

Although continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines are the gold standard in the management of sleep apnea, several other treatments should be considered.

“Just because you have a hammer doesn’t mean everything is a nail,” Kimberly Hardin, MD, professor of clinical internal medicine at University of California, Davis, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Sleep has been underestimated in the health arena for many, many years,” said Dr. Hardin, who likened sound sleep to the “sixth vital sign.” “We know that sleep plays an integral role in our health.”

Dr. Hardin highlighted nasal and oral mandibular advancement devices and oral appliance therapy as alternatives to CPAP. Surgical options include nasal surgery and maxillomandibular advancement surgery, also known as double-jaw surgery. Such procedures should be considered only for patients who are unwilling or unable to use CPAP or other nonsurgical treatments.

Sleep apnea occurs in 4% of adult men and 2% of adult women aged 30-60. Most commonly, obstructive sleep apnea involves the cessation or significant decrease in airflow while sleeping. The Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI) is the number of times a patient experiences apnea or hypopnea during one night divided by the hours of sleep. Normal sleep AHI is fewer than five events per hour on average; mild sleep apnea is five to 14 events; moderate, 15-29; and severe, at least 30 events.

To identify sleep apnea, physicians have several tools at their disposal, starting with preliminary questionnaires that query patients as to whether they are having trouble falling asleep, staying asleep, or are tired during the day. Additional assessment tools include sleep lab testing and at-home testing.

At-home testing has come to include more than the common devices that are worn around the chest and nose for a night.

“It’s not very fun looking,” Dr. Hardin said of the weighty, obtrusive monitoring devices. “So lots of folks have come up with some new ways of doing things.”

These new options incorporate headbands, wrist and finger devices, arterial tonometry, and sleep rings.

Studies show that U.S. adults do not get enough sleep, and poor-quality sleep is as inadequate as insufficient sleep. Barely a third of adults get the minimum 7 hours recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Non-Hispanic Black adults are less likely to report sleeping 7-9 hours and are more likely to report sleeping 6 or fewer hours than are non-Hispanic White and Hispanic adults.

Dr. Hardin said doctors can advise patients to keep their bedrooms quiet, dark, and cool with no TVs or electronics, to maintain regular wake and sleep times, and to stop consuming caffeine late in the day.

Insufficient or poor sleep can have wide-ranging implications on medical conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, cognitive function, mental health, and, ultimately, mortality, according to Dr. Hardin.

“Some people say, ‘Oh, never mind, I can sleep when I’m dead,’ “ Dr. Hardin said. But such a mentality can have a bearing on life expectancy.
 

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

Although continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines are the gold standard in the management of sleep apnea, several other treatments should be considered.

“Just because you have a hammer doesn’t mean everything is a nail,” Kimberly Hardin, MD, professor of clinical internal medicine at University of California, Davis, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Sleep has been underestimated in the health arena for many, many years,” said Dr. Hardin, who likened sound sleep to the “sixth vital sign.” “We know that sleep plays an integral role in our health.”

Dr. Hardin highlighted nasal and oral mandibular advancement devices and oral appliance therapy as alternatives to CPAP. Surgical options include nasal surgery and maxillomandibular advancement surgery, also known as double-jaw surgery. Such procedures should be considered only for patients who are unwilling or unable to use CPAP or other nonsurgical treatments.

Sleep apnea occurs in 4% of adult men and 2% of adult women aged 30-60. Most commonly, obstructive sleep apnea involves the cessation or significant decrease in airflow while sleeping. The Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI) is the number of times a patient experiences apnea or hypopnea during one night divided by the hours of sleep. Normal sleep AHI is fewer than five events per hour on average; mild sleep apnea is five to 14 events; moderate, 15-29; and severe, at least 30 events.

To identify sleep apnea, physicians have several tools at their disposal, starting with preliminary questionnaires that query patients as to whether they are having trouble falling asleep, staying asleep, or are tired during the day. Additional assessment tools include sleep lab testing and at-home testing.

At-home testing has come to include more than the common devices that are worn around the chest and nose for a night.

“It’s not very fun looking,” Dr. Hardin said of the weighty, obtrusive monitoring devices. “So lots of folks have come up with some new ways of doing things.”

These new options incorporate headbands, wrist and finger devices, arterial tonometry, and sleep rings.

Studies show that U.S. adults do not get enough sleep, and poor-quality sleep is as inadequate as insufficient sleep. Barely a third of adults get the minimum 7 hours recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Non-Hispanic Black adults are less likely to report sleeping 7-9 hours and are more likely to report sleeping 6 or fewer hours than are non-Hispanic White and Hispanic adults.

Dr. Hardin said doctors can advise patients to keep their bedrooms quiet, dark, and cool with no TVs or electronics, to maintain regular wake and sleep times, and to stop consuming caffeine late in the day.

Insufficient or poor sleep can have wide-ranging implications on medical conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, cognitive function, mental health, and, ultimately, mortality, according to Dr. Hardin.

“Some people say, ‘Oh, never mind, I can sleep when I’m dead,’ “ Dr. Hardin said. But such a mentality can have a bearing on life expectancy.
 

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

Although continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines are the gold standard in the management of sleep apnea, several other treatments should be considered.

“Just because you have a hammer doesn’t mean everything is a nail,” Kimberly Hardin, MD, professor of clinical internal medicine at University of California, Davis, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Sleep has been underestimated in the health arena for many, many years,” said Dr. Hardin, who likened sound sleep to the “sixth vital sign.” “We know that sleep plays an integral role in our health.”

Dr. Hardin highlighted nasal and oral mandibular advancement devices and oral appliance therapy as alternatives to CPAP. Surgical options include nasal surgery and maxillomandibular advancement surgery, also known as double-jaw surgery. Such procedures should be considered only for patients who are unwilling or unable to use CPAP or other nonsurgical treatments.

Sleep apnea occurs in 4% of adult men and 2% of adult women aged 30-60. Most commonly, obstructive sleep apnea involves the cessation or significant decrease in airflow while sleeping. The Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI) is the number of times a patient experiences apnea or hypopnea during one night divided by the hours of sleep. Normal sleep AHI is fewer than five events per hour on average; mild sleep apnea is five to 14 events; moderate, 15-29; and severe, at least 30 events.

To identify sleep apnea, physicians have several tools at their disposal, starting with preliminary questionnaires that query patients as to whether they are having trouble falling asleep, staying asleep, or are tired during the day. Additional assessment tools include sleep lab testing and at-home testing.

At-home testing has come to include more than the common devices that are worn around the chest and nose for a night.

“It’s not very fun looking,” Dr. Hardin said of the weighty, obtrusive monitoring devices. “So lots of folks have come up with some new ways of doing things.”

These new options incorporate headbands, wrist and finger devices, arterial tonometry, and sleep rings.

Studies show that U.S. adults do not get enough sleep, and poor-quality sleep is as inadequate as insufficient sleep. Barely a third of adults get the minimum 7 hours recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Non-Hispanic Black adults are less likely to report sleeping 7-9 hours and are more likely to report sleeping 6 or fewer hours than are non-Hispanic White and Hispanic adults.

Dr. Hardin said doctors can advise patients to keep their bedrooms quiet, dark, and cool with no TVs or electronics, to maintain regular wake and sleep times, and to stop consuming caffeine late in the day.

Insufficient or poor sleep can have wide-ranging implications on medical conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, cognitive function, mental health, and, ultimately, mortality, according to Dr. Hardin.

“Some people say, ‘Oh, never mind, I can sleep when I’m dead,’ “ Dr. Hardin said. But such a mentality can have a bearing on life expectancy.
 

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

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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