Clinical Topics & News

As a class of drugs, proteasome inhibitors are known to rarely cause drug-induced thrombotic microangiopathy (DITMA). In particular, carfilzomib is a second-generation, irreversible proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of relapsed, refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in combination with other therapeutic agents.¹ Although generally well tolerated, carfilzomib has been associated with serious adverse events such as cardiovascular toxicity and DITMA.^2-4 Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is a life-threatening disorder characterized by thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, and end-organ damage.⁵ Its occurrence secondary to carfilzomib has been reported only rarely in clinical trials of MM, and the most effective management of the disorder as well as the concurrent risk factors that contribute to its development remain incompletely understood.^6,7 As a result, given both the expanding use of carfilzomib in practice and the morbidity of TMA, descriptions of carfilzomib-induced TMA from the real-world setting continue to provide important contributions to our understanding of the disorder.

At our US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center, 2 patients developed severe carfilzomib-induced TMA within days of one another. The presentation of simultaneous cases was highly unexpected and offered the unique opportunity to compare clinical features in real time. Here, we describe our 2 cases in detail, review their presentations and management in the context of the prior literature, and discuss potential insights gained into the disease.

Case Presentation

Case 1

A 78-year-old male patient was diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in 2012 that progressed to Revised International Staging System stage II IgG-κ MM in 2016 due to worsening anemia with a hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL (Table 1). He was treated initially with 8 cycles of first-line bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, to which he achieved a partial response with > 50% reduction in serum M-protein. He then received 3 cycles of maintenance bortezomib until relapse, at which time he was switched to second-line therapy consisting of carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 56 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 56 mg/m² on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 for subsequent cycles plus dexamethasone 20 mg twice weekly every 28 days.

After the patient received cycle 3, day 1 of carfilzomib, he developed subjective fevers, chills, and diarrhea. He missed his day 2 infusion and instead presented to the VA emergency department, where his vital signs were stable and laboratory tests were notable for the following levels: leukocytosis of20.3 K/µL (91.7% neutrophils), hemoglobin 12.4 g/dL (prior 13.5 g/dL), platelet count 171 K/µL, and creatinine 1.39 mg/dL (prior 1.13 g/dL). A chest X-ray demonstrated diffuse bilateral opacities concerning for edema vs infection, and he was started empirically on vancomycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and azithromycin. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, aspirin, finasteride, oxybutynin, ranitidine, omega-3 fatty acids, fish oil, vitamin D, and senna, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count dropped to 81 K/µL and creatinine level rose to 1.78 mg/dL. He developed dark urine (urinalysis [UA] 3+ blood, 6-11 red blood cells per high power field [RBC/HPF]) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) > 1,200 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), haptoglobin < 30 mg/dL (reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), total bilirubin 3.2 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; indirect bilirubin, 2.6 mg/dL), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy (Figure 1).

Case 2

A 59-year-old male patient, diagnosed in 2013 with ISS stage I IgG-κ MM after presenting with compression fractures, completed 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone before undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with complete response (Table 1). He subsequently received single-agent maintenance bortezomib until relapse nearly 2 years later, at which time he started second-line carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycles 2 to 8, lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1 to 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly every 28 days. Serum free light chain levels normalized after 9 cycles, and he subsequently began maintenance carfilzomib 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 15 plus lenalidomide 10 mg on days 1 to 21 every 28 days.

On the morning before admission, the patient received C6D17 of maintenance carfilzomib, which had been delayed from day 15 because of the holiday. Later that evening, he developed nausea, vomiting, and fever of 101.3 °F. He presented to the VA emergency department and was tachycardic (108 beats per minute) and hypotensive (86/55 mm Hg). Laboratory tests were notable for hemoglobin level 9.9 g/dL (prior 11.6 g/dL), platelet count 270 K/µL, and creatinine level 1.86 mg/dL (prior 1.12 mg/dL). A respiratory viral panel was positive for influenza A, and antimicrobial agents were eventually broadened to piperacillin-tazobactam, azithromycin, and oseltamivir. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, zoledronic acid, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, aspirin, amlodipine, atorvastatin, omeprazole, zolpidem, calcium, vitamin D, loratadine, ascorbic acid, and prochlorperazine, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count declined from 211 to 57 K/µL. He developed tea-colored urine (UA 2+ blood, 0-2 RBC/HPF) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including LDH 910 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), total bilirubin 3.3 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; no direct or indirect available), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy. Although haptoglobin level was normal at this time (206 mg/dL; reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), it decreased to 42 mg/dL by the following day. Additional workup included a negative direct Coombs and a DIC panel showing elevated fibrinogen (596 mg/dL; reference range, 200-400 mg/dL) and mildly elevated INR (1.16). Blood cultures remained negative, and a 22-pathogen GI PCR panel identified no viral or bacterial pathogens, including E coli O157:H7. C3 (114 mg/dL; reference range, 90-180 mg/dL) and C4 (40 mg/dL; reference range, 16-47 mg/dL) complement levels were both normal.

Based on these findings, empiric treatment was started with plasma exchange and pulse-dosed steroids. The patient received 3 cycles of plasma exchange until the results of the ADAMTS13 activity ruled out TTP (63% enzyme activity). Over the next 6 days, his platelet count reached a nadir of 6 K/µL and creatinine level peaked at 10.36 mg/dL, necessitating the initiation of hemodialysis. Given severe renal insufficiency, a diagnosis of atypical HUS was again considered, and eculizumab 900 mg was administered on days 9 and 16 with stabilization of renal function. By the time of discharge on day 17, the patient’s creatinine level had decreased to 4.17 mg/dL and platelet count was 164 K/µL. Creatinine level normalized to 1.02 mg/dL by day 72.

Outpatient genetic testing through the BloodCenter of Wisconsin Diagnostic Laboratories was negative for gene mutations associated with atypical HUS. Approximately 1 month after discharge, the patient resumed maintenance lenalidomide alone without reinitiation of proteasome inhibitor therapy.

Discussion

In this case series, we describe the uncommon drug-related adverse event of TMA occurring in 2 patients with MM after receiving carfilzomib. Although the incidence of TMA disorders is low, reaching up to 2.8% in patients receiving carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in the phase 2 CARDAMON trial, our experience suggests that a high index of suspicion for carfilzomib-induced TMA is warranted in the real-world setting.⁸ TMA syndromes, including TTP, HUS, and DITMA, are characterized by microvascular endothelial injury and thrombosis leading to thrombocytopenia and microangiopathic hemolytic anemia.^5,9 Several drug culprits of DITMA are recognized, including quinine, gemcitabine, tacrolimus, and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib).^10-12 In a real-world series of patients receiving proteasome inhibitor therapy, either carfilzomib (n=8) or bortezomib (n=3), common clinical features of DITMA included thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and renal insufficiency with or without a need for hemodialysis.² Although DITMA has been described primarily as an early event, its occurrence after 12 months of proteasome inhibitor therapy has also been reported, both in this series and elsewhere, thereby suggesting an ongoing risk for DITMA throughout the duration of carfilzomib treatment.^2,13

The diagnosis of DITMA can be challenging given its nonspecific symptoms that overlap with other TMA syndromes. Previous studies have proposed that for a drug to be associated with DITMA, there should be: (1) evidence of clinical and/or pathologic findings of TMA; (2) exclusion of alternative causes of TMA; (3) no other new drug exposures other than the suspected culprit medication; and (4) a lack of recurrence of TMA in absence of the drug.¹⁰ In the case of patients with MM, other causes of TMA have also been described, including the underlying plasma cell disorder itself and stem cell transplantation.¹⁴ In the 2 cases we have described, these alternative causes were considered unlikely given that only 1 patient underwent transplantation remotely and neither had a previous history of TMA secondary to their disease. With respect to other TMA syndromes, ADAMTS13 levels > 10% and negative stool studies for E coli O157:H7 suggested against TTP or typical HUS, respectively. No other drug culprits were identified, and the close timing between the receipt of carfilzomib and symptom onset supported a causal relationship.

Because specific therapies are lacking, management of DITMA has traditionally included drug discontinuation and supportive care for end-organ injury.⁵ The terminal complement inhibitor, eculizumab, improves hematologic abnormalities and renal function in patients with atypical HUS but its use for treating patients with DITMA is not standard.¹⁵ Therefore, the decision to administer eculizumab to our 2 patients was driven by their severe renal insufficiency without improvement after plasma exchange, which suggested a phenotype similar to atypical HUS. After administration of eculizumab, renal function stabilized and then gradually improved over weeks to months, a time course similar to that described in cases of patients with DITMA secondary to other anticancer therapies treated with eculizumab.¹⁶ Although these results suggest a potential role for eculizumab in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA, distinguishing the benefit of eculizumab over drug discontinuation alone remains challenging, and well-designed prospective investigations are needed.

Conclusions

DITMA is a known risk of proteasome inhibitors and is listed as a safety warning in the prescribing information for bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib.¹² Given the overall rarity of this adverse event, the simultaneous presentation of our 2 cases was unexpected and underscores the need for heightened awareness in clinical practice. In addition, while no underlying complement mutations were identified, eculizumab was used in both cases to successfully stabilize renal function. Further research investigating the efficacy of eculizumab and the role of complement activation in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA will be valuable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the patients whose histories are reported in this manuscript as well as the physicians and staff who provided care during the hospitalizations and beyond. We also thank Oscar Silva, MD, PhD, for his assistance in reviewing and formatting the peripheral blood smear images.

As a class of drugs, proteasome inhibitors are known to rarely cause drug-induced thrombotic microangiopathy (DITMA). In particular, carfilzomib is a second-generation, irreversible proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of relapsed, refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in combination with other therapeutic agents.¹ Although generally well tolerated, carfilzomib has been associated with serious adverse events such as cardiovascular toxicity and DITMA.^2-4 Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is a life-threatening disorder characterized by thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, and end-organ damage.⁵ Its occurrence secondary to carfilzomib has been reported only rarely in clinical trials of MM, and the most effective management of the disorder as well as the concurrent risk factors that contribute to its development remain incompletely understood.^6,7 As a result, given both the expanding use of carfilzomib in practice and the morbidity of TMA, descriptions of carfilzomib-induced TMA from the real-world setting continue to provide important contributions to our understanding of the disorder.

At our US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center, 2 patients developed severe carfilzomib-induced TMA within days of one another. The presentation of simultaneous cases was highly unexpected and offered the unique opportunity to compare clinical features in real time. Here, we describe our 2 cases in detail, review their presentations and management in the context of the prior literature, and discuss potential insights gained into the disease.

Case Presentation

Case 1

A 78-year-old male patient was diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in 2012 that progressed to Revised International Staging System stage II IgG-κ MM in 2016 due to worsening anemia with a hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL (Table 1). He was treated initially with 8 cycles of first-line bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, to which he achieved a partial response with > 50% reduction in serum M-protein. He then received 3 cycles of maintenance bortezomib until relapse, at which time he was switched to second-line therapy consisting of carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 56 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 56 mg/m² on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 for subsequent cycles plus dexamethasone 20 mg twice weekly every 28 days.

After the patient received cycle 3, day 1 of carfilzomib, he developed subjective fevers, chills, and diarrhea. He missed his day 2 infusion and instead presented to the VA emergency department, where his vital signs were stable and laboratory tests were notable for the following levels: leukocytosis of20.3 K/µL (91.7% neutrophils), hemoglobin 12.4 g/dL (prior 13.5 g/dL), platelet count 171 K/µL, and creatinine 1.39 mg/dL (prior 1.13 g/dL). A chest X-ray demonstrated diffuse bilateral opacities concerning for edema vs infection, and he was started empirically on vancomycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and azithromycin. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, aspirin, finasteride, oxybutynin, ranitidine, omega-3 fatty acids, fish oil, vitamin D, and senna, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count dropped to 81 K/µL and creatinine level rose to 1.78 mg/dL. He developed dark urine (urinalysis [UA] 3+ blood, 6-11 red blood cells per high power field [RBC/HPF]) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) > 1,200 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), haptoglobin < 30 mg/dL (reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), total bilirubin 3.2 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; indirect bilirubin, 2.6 mg/dL), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy (Figure 1).

Case 2

A 59-year-old male patient, diagnosed in 2013 with ISS stage I IgG-κ MM after presenting with compression fractures, completed 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone before undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with complete response (Table 1). He subsequently received single-agent maintenance bortezomib until relapse nearly 2 years later, at which time he started second-line carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycles 2 to 8, lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1 to 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly every 28 days. Serum free light chain levels normalized after 9 cycles, and he subsequently began maintenance carfilzomib 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 15 plus lenalidomide 10 mg on days 1 to 21 every 28 days.

On the morning before admission, the patient received C6D17 of maintenance carfilzomib, which had been delayed from day 15 because of the holiday. Later that evening, he developed nausea, vomiting, and fever of 101.3 °F. He presented to the VA emergency department and was tachycardic (108 beats per minute) and hypotensive (86/55 mm Hg). Laboratory tests were notable for hemoglobin level 9.9 g/dL (prior 11.6 g/dL), platelet count 270 K/µL, and creatinine level 1.86 mg/dL (prior 1.12 mg/dL). A respiratory viral panel was positive for influenza A, and antimicrobial agents were eventually broadened to piperacillin-tazobactam, azithromycin, and oseltamivir. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, zoledronic acid, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, aspirin, amlodipine, atorvastatin, omeprazole, zolpidem, calcium, vitamin D, loratadine, ascorbic acid, and prochlorperazine, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count declined from 211 to 57 K/µL. He developed tea-colored urine (UA 2+ blood, 0-2 RBC/HPF) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including LDH 910 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), total bilirubin 3.3 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; no direct or indirect available), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy. Although haptoglobin level was normal at this time (206 mg/dL; reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), it decreased to 42 mg/dL by the following day. Additional workup included a negative direct Coombs and a DIC panel showing elevated fibrinogen (596 mg/dL; reference range, 200-400 mg/dL) and mildly elevated INR (1.16). Blood cultures remained negative, and a 22-pathogen GI PCR panel identified no viral or bacterial pathogens, including E coli O157:H7. C3 (114 mg/dL; reference range, 90-180 mg/dL) and C4 (40 mg/dL; reference range, 16-47 mg/dL) complement levels were both normal.

Based on these findings, empiric treatment was started with plasma exchange and pulse-dosed steroids. The patient received 3 cycles of plasma exchange until the results of the ADAMTS13 activity ruled out TTP (63% enzyme activity). Over the next 6 days, his platelet count reached a nadir of 6 K/µL and creatinine level peaked at 10.36 mg/dL, necessitating the initiation of hemodialysis. Given severe renal insufficiency, a diagnosis of atypical HUS was again considered, and eculizumab 900 mg was administered on days 9 and 16 with stabilization of renal function. By the time of discharge on day 17, the patient’s creatinine level had decreased to 4.17 mg/dL and platelet count was 164 K/µL. Creatinine level normalized to 1.02 mg/dL by day 72.

Outpatient genetic testing through the BloodCenter of Wisconsin Diagnostic Laboratories was negative for gene mutations associated with atypical HUS. Approximately 1 month after discharge, the patient resumed maintenance lenalidomide alone without reinitiation of proteasome inhibitor therapy.

Discussion

In this case series, we describe the uncommon drug-related adverse event of TMA occurring in 2 patients with MM after receiving carfilzomib. Although the incidence of TMA disorders is low, reaching up to 2.8% in patients receiving carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in the phase 2 CARDAMON trial, our experience suggests that a high index of suspicion for carfilzomib-induced TMA is warranted in the real-world setting.⁸ TMA syndromes, including TTP, HUS, and DITMA, are characterized by microvascular endothelial injury and thrombosis leading to thrombocytopenia and microangiopathic hemolytic anemia.^5,9 Several drug culprits of DITMA are recognized, including quinine, gemcitabine, tacrolimus, and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib).^10-12 In a real-world series of patients receiving proteasome inhibitor therapy, either carfilzomib (n=8) or bortezomib (n=3), common clinical features of DITMA included thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and renal insufficiency with or without a need for hemodialysis.² Although DITMA has been described primarily as an early event, its occurrence after 12 months of proteasome inhibitor therapy has also been reported, both in this series and elsewhere, thereby suggesting an ongoing risk for DITMA throughout the duration of carfilzomib treatment.^2,13

The diagnosis of DITMA can be challenging given its nonspecific symptoms that overlap with other TMA syndromes. Previous studies have proposed that for a drug to be associated with DITMA, there should be: (1) evidence of clinical and/or pathologic findings of TMA; (2) exclusion of alternative causes of TMA; (3) no other new drug exposures other than the suspected culprit medication; and (4) a lack of recurrence of TMA in absence of the drug.¹⁰ In the case of patients with MM, other causes of TMA have also been described, including the underlying plasma cell disorder itself and stem cell transplantation.¹⁴ In the 2 cases we have described, these alternative causes were considered unlikely given that only 1 patient underwent transplantation remotely and neither had a previous history of TMA secondary to their disease. With respect to other TMA syndromes, ADAMTS13 levels > 10% and negative stool studies for E coli O157:H7 suggested against TTP or typical HUS, respectively. No other drug culprits were identified, and the close timing between the receipt of carfilzomib and symptom onset supported a causal relationship.

Because specific therapies are lacking, management of DITMA has traditionally included drug discontinuation and supportive care for end-organ injury.⁵ The terminal complement inhibitor, eculizumab, improves hematologic abnormalities and renal function in patients with atypical HUS but its use for treating patients with DITMA is not standard.¹⁵ Therefore, the decision to administer eculizumab to our 2 patients was driven by their severe renal insufficiency without improvement after plasma exchange, which suggested a phenotype similar to atypical HUS. After administration of eculizumab, renal function stabilized and then gradually improved over weeks to months, a time course similar to that described in cases of patients with DITMA secondary to other anticancer therapies treated with eculizumab.¹⁶ Although these results suggest a potential role for eculizumab in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA, distinguishing the benefit of eculizumab over drug discontinuation alone remains challenging, and well-designed prospective investigations are needed.

Conclusions

DITMA is a known risk of proteasome inhibitors and is listed as a safety warning in the prescribing information for bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib.¹² Given the overall rarity of this adverse event, the simultaneous presentation of our 2 cases was unexpected and underscores the need for heightened awareness in clinical practice. In addition, while no underlying complement mutations were identified, eculizumab was used in both cases to successfully stabilize renal function. Further research investigating the efficacy of eculizumab and the role of complement activation in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA will be valuable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the patients whose histories are reported in this manuscript as well as the physicians and staff who provided care during the hospitalizations and beyond. We also thank Oscar Silva, MD, PhD, for his assistance in reviewing and formatting the peripheral blood smear images.

As a class of drugs, proteasome inhibitors are known to rarely cause drug-induced thrombotic microangiopathy (DITMA). In particular, carfilzomib is a second-generation, irreversible proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of relapsed, refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in combination with other therapeutic agents.¹ Although generally well tolerated, carfilzomib has been associated with serious adverse events such as cardiovascular toxicity and DITMA.^2-4 Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is a life-threatening disorder characterized by thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, and end-organ damage.⁵ Its occurrence secondary to carfilzomib has been reported only rarely in clinical trials of MM, and the most effective management of the disorder as well as the concurrent risk factors that contribute to its development remain incompletely understood.^6,7 As a result, given both the expanding use of carfilzomib in practice and the morbidity of TMA, descriptions of carfilzomib-induced TMA from the real-world setting continue to provide important contributions to our understanding of the disorder.

At our US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center, 2 patients developed severe carfilzomib-induced TMA within days of one another. The presentation of simultaneous cases was highly unexpected and offered the unique opportunity to compare clinical features in real time. Here, we describe our 2 cases in detail, review their presentations and management in the context of the prior literature, and discuss potential insights gained into the disease.

Case Presentation

Case 1

A 78-year-old male patient was diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in 2012 that progressed to Revised International Staging System stage II IgG-κ MM in 2016 due to worsening anemia with a hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL (Table 1). He was treated initially with 8 cycles of first-line bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, to which he achieved a partial response with > 50% reduction in serum M-protein. He then received 3 cycles of maintenance bortezomib until relapse, at which time he was switched to second-line therapy consisting of carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 56 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 56 mg/m² on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 for subsequent cycles plus dexamethasone 20 mg twice weekly every 28 days.

After the patient received cycle 3, day 1 of carfilzomib, he developed subjective fevers, chills, and diarrhea. He missed his day 2 infusion and instead presented to the VA emergency department, where his vital signs were stable and laboratory tests were notable for the following levels: leukocytosis of20.3 K/µL (91.7% neutrophils), hemoglobin 12.4 g/dL (prior 13.5 g/dL), platelet count 171 K/µL, and creatinine 1.39 mg/dL (prior 1.13 g/dL). A chest X-ray demonstrated diffuse bilateral opacities concerning for edema vs infection, and he was started empirically on vancomycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and azithromycin. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, aspirin, finasteride, oxybutynin, ranitidine, omega-3 fatty acids, fish oil, vitamin D, and senna, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count dropped to 81 K/µL and creatinine level rose to 1.78 mg/dL. He developed dark urine (urinalysis [UA] 3+ blood, 6-11 red blood cells per high power field [RBC/HPF]) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) > 1,200 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), haptoglobin < 30 mg/dL (reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), total bilirubin 3.2 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; indirect bilirubin, 2.6 mg/dL), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy (Figure 1).

Case 2

A 59-year-old male patient, diagnosed in 2013 with ISS stage I IgG-κ MM after presenting with compression fractures, completed 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone before undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with complete response (Table 1). He subsequently received single-agent maintenance bortezomib until relapse nearly 2 years later, at which time he started second-line carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycles 2 to 8, lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1 to 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly every 28 days. Serum free light chain levels normalized after 9 cycles, and he subsequently began maintenance carfilzomib 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 15 plus lenalidomide 10 mg on days 1 to 21 every 28 days.

On the morning before admission, the patient received C6D17 of maintenance carfilzomib, which had been delayed from day 15 because of the holiday. Later that evening, he developed nausea, vomiting, and fever of 101.3 °F. He presented to the VA emergency department and was tachycardic (108 beats per minute) and hypotensive (86/55 mm Hg). Laboratory tests were notable for hemoglobin level 9.9 g/dL (prior 11.6 g/dL), platelet count 270 K/µL, and creatinine level 1.86 mg/dL (prior 1.12 mg/dL). A respiratory viral panel was positive for influenza A, and antimicrobial agents were eventually broadened to piperacillin-tazobactam, azithromycin, and oseltamivir. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, zoledronic acid, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, aspirin, amlodipine, atorvastatin, omeprazole, zolpidem, calcium, vitamin D, loratadine, ascorbic acid, and prochlorperazine, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count declined from 211 to 57 K/µL. He developed tea-colored urine (UA 2+ blood, 0-2 RBC/HPF) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including LDH 910 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), total bilirubin 3.3 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; no direct or indirect available), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy. Although haptoglobin level was normal at this time (206 mg/dL; reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), it decreased to 42 mg/dL by the following day. Additional workup included a negative direct Coombs and a DIC panel showing elevated fibrinogen (596 mg/dL; reference range, 200-400 mg/dL) and mildly elevated INR (1.16). Blood cultures remained negative, and a 22-pathogen GI PCR panel identified no viral or bacterial pathogens, including E coli O157:H7. C3 (114 mg/dL; reference range, 90-180 mg/dL) and C4 (40 mg/dL; reference range, 16-47 mg/dL) complement levels were both normal.

Based on these findings, empiric treatment was started with plasma exchange and pulse-dosed steroids. The patient received 3 cycles of plasma exchange until the results of the ADAMTS13 activity ruled out TTP (63% enzyme activity). Over the next 6 days, his platelet count reached a nadir of 6 K/µL and creatinine level peaked at 10.36 mg/dL, necessitating the initiation of hemodialysis. Given severe renal insufficiency, a diagnosis of atypical HUS was again considered, and eculizumab 900 mg was administered on days 9 and 16 with stabilization of renal function. By the time of discharge on day 17, the patient’s creatinine level had decreased to 4.17 mg/dL and platelet count was 164 K/µL. Creatinine level normalized to 1.02 mg/dL by day 72.

Outpatient genetic testing through the BloodCenter of Wisconsin Diagnostic Laboratories was negative for gene mutations associated with atypical HUS. Approximately 1 month after discharge, the patient resumed maintenance lenalidomide alone without reinitiation of proteasome inhibitor therapy.

Discussion

In this case series, we describe the uncommon drug-related adverse event of TMA occurring in 2 patients with MM after receiving carfilzomib. Although the incidence of TMA disorders is low, reaching up to 2.8% in patients receiving carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in the phase 2 CARDAMON trial, our experience suggests that a high index of suspicion for carfilzomib-induced TMA is warranted in the real-world setting.⁸ TMA syndromes, including TTP, HUS, and DITMA, are characterized by microvascular endothelial injury and thrombosis leading to thrombocytopenia and microangiopathic hemolytic anemia.^5,9 Several drug culprits of DITMA are recognized, including quinine, gemcitabine, tacrolimus, and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib).^10-12 In a real-world series of patients receiving proteasome inhibitor therapy, either carfilzomib (n=8) or bortezomib (n=3), common clinical features of DITMA included thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and renal insufficiency with or without a need for hemodialysis.² Although DITMA has been described primarily as an early event, its occurrence after 12 months of proteasome inhibitor therapy has also been reported, both in this series and elsewhere, thereby suggesting an ongoing risk for DITMA throughout the duration of carfilzomib treatment.^2,13

The diagnosis of DITMA can be challenging given its nonspecific symptoms that overlap with other TMA syndromes. Previous studies have proposed that for a drug to be associated with DITMA, there should be: (1) evidence of clinical and/or pathologic findings of TMA; (2) exclusion of alternative causes of TMA; (3) no other new drug exposures other than the suspected culprit medication; and (4) a lack of recurrence of TMA in absence of the drug.¹⁰ In the case of patients with MM, other causes of TMA have also been described, including the underlying plasma cell disorder itself and stem cell transplantation.¹⁴ In the 2 cases we have described, these alternative causes were considered unlikely given that only 1 patient underwent transplantation remotely and neither had a previous history of TMA secondary to their disease. With respect to other TMA syndromes, ADAMTS13 levels > 10% and negative stool studies for E coli O157:H7 suggested against TTP or typical HUS, respectively. No other drug culprits were identified, and the close timing between the receipt of carfilzomib and symptom onset supported a causal relationship.

Because specific therapies are lacking, management of DITMA has traditionally included drug discontinuation and supportive care for end-organ injury.⁵ The terminal complement inhibitor, eculizumab, improves hematologic abnormalities and renal function in patients with atypical HUS but its use for treating patients with DITMA is not standard.¹⁵ Therefore, the decision to administer eculizumab to our 2 patients was driven by their severe renal insufficiency without improvement after plasma exchange, which suggested a phenotype similar to atypical HUS. After administration of eculizumab, renal function stabilized and then gradually improved over weeks to months, a time course similar to that described in cases of patients with DITMA secondary to other anticancer therapies treated with eculizumab.¹⁶ Although these results suggest a potential role for eculizumab in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA, distinguishing the benefit of eculizumab over drug discontinuation alone remains challenging, and well-designed prospective investigations are needed.

Conclusions

DITMA is a known risk of proteasome inhibitors and is listed as a safety warning in the prescribing information for bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib.¹² Given the overall rarity of this adverse event, the simultaneous presentation of our 2 cases was unexpected and underscores the need for heightened awareness in clinical practice. In addition, while no underlying complement mutations were identified, eculizumab was used in both cases to successfully stabilize renal function. Further research investigating the efficacy of eculizumab and the role of complement activation in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA will be valuable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the patients whose histories are reported in this manuscript as well as the physicians and staff who provided care during the hospitalizations and beyond. We also thank Oscar Silva, MD, PhD, for his assistance in reviewing and formatting the peripheral blood smear images.

U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.

Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.

The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.

The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.

“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.

“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”

A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.

Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.

Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).

COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).

Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.

Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.

“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.

In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.

“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”

While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”

He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.

“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”

The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.

In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.

They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.

Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”

This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.

U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.

Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.

The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.

The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.

“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.

“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”

A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.

Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.

Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).

COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).

Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.

Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.

“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.

In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.

“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”

While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”

He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.

“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”

The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.

In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.

They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.

Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”

This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.

U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.

Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.

The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.

The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.

“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.

“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”

A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.

Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.

Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).

COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).

Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.

Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.

“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.

In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.

“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”

While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”

He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.

“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”

The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.

In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.

They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.

Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”

This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.

A new artificial intelligence (AI) system can help expert endoscopists improve their colonoscopies, a new study indicates.

Endoscopists using the computer program SKOUT (Iterative Scopes) achieved a 27% better detection rate of adenomas per colonoscopy, compared with endoscopists working without computer assistance, said lead author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, director of outcomes research in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University.

The study showed that AI colonoscopy systems can work in a routine population of U.S. patients, Dr. Shaukat said in an interview.

“As gastroenterologists, we are very excited,” she said.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology and was presented at the annual Digestive Disease^® Week.

Previous research has shown that experienced endoscopists miss many polyps. To improve their detection rate, multiple companies have used machine learning to develop algorithms to identify suspicious areas.

“Once the computer sees the polyp, it puts a bounding box around it,” said Dr. Shaukat. “It draws the attention of the endoscopist to it. It assists the endoscopist but doesn’t replace the endoscopist.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two such systems: EndoScreener (Wision AI) and GI Genius (Cosmo Pharmaceuticals).

The SKOUT algorithm was trained on 3,616 full-length colonoscopy procedure videos from multiple centers. In bench testing, it achieved a 93.5% polyp-level true positive rate and a 2.3% false positive rate.
 

Randomized trial pits AI against standard procedure

To see how well the system works in the clinic, Dr. Shaukat and colleagues recruited 22 U.S. board-certified gastroenterologists from five academic and community centers. The gastroenterologists all had a minimum adenoma detection rate of 25%, defined as the number of colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma is found, divided by the number of colonoscopies performed. All the gastroenterologists had performed a minimum of 1,000 colonoscopy procedures.

The researchers randomly assigned 682 patients to undergo colonoscopy with the SKOUT and 677 to undergo colonoscopy using the standard procedure. The patients were aged 40 years or older and were scheduled for either screening or surveillance.

The endoscopists who received computer assistance detected 1.05 adenomas per colonoscopy versus 0.83 for those who did not have computer assistance, a statistically significant difference.

The proportion of resections with clinically significant histology was 71.7% with standard colonoscopies versus 67.4% with computer-assisted colonoscopies. This fell within the 14% margin that the researchers had set to show noninferiority for the computer system.

“The important thing is not just detecting all polyps but the polyps we care about, which are adenomas, and doing so without increasing the false positive rate,” said Dr. Shaukat.

The adenoma detection rate was 43.9% for the standard procedure and 47.8% for the computer-assisted procedure. This difference was not statistically significant, but Dr. Shaukat argued that the adenoma detection rate is not the best measure of success, because endoscopists sometimes stop looking for polyps once they find one.

The overall sessile serrated lesion detection rate for the standard colonoscopies was 16.0% versus 12.6% for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which also was not statistically significant.
 

Next steps

This study is important because it was a large, multicenter trial in the United States, said Omer Ahmad, BSc, MBBS, MRCP, a gastroenterologist and clinical researcher at University College London, who was not involved in the study. Most of the trials of AI have been in China or Europe. “It was very important just to see this replicated in the U.S. population.”

The average procedure time was 15.41 minutes for the standard colonoscopies versus 15.82 minutes for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which was not statistically different.

“It is important to note that the studies so far suggest that false positives do not have a significant impact on workflow,” said Dr. Ahmad.

The next crucial step in evaluating AI colonoscopy will be to track the effects over the long term, said Dr. Shaukat.

“As these technologies get approved and we see them in practice, we need to see that it’s leading to some outcome, like reduced colon cancer,” she said.

That also may be necessary before payers in the United States are willing to pay the additional cost for this technology, she added.

In the meantime, Dr. Ahmad said computer assistance is improving his own colonoscopies.

“I have found the systems have spotted some polyps that I may have otherwise missed,” he said. “There is a false positive rate, but for me, it doesn’t distract from my workflow.”

He believes the systems will be particularly helpful in improving the performance of less-skilled endoscopists.

He is also looking forward to systems that can help complete the reports needed at the end of each colonoscopy. “Most of us dislike having to write a laborious report and having to code everything at the end of the procedure,” he said.

The study was funded by Iterative Scopes. Dr. Shaukat reported having received research funding to her institution for the current study from Iterative Scopes and consulting fees from Freenome and Medtronic. Dr. Ahmad reports receiving speaker fees from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology/Medtronic.

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

A new artificial intelligence (AI) system can help expert endoscopists improve their colonoscopies, a new study indicates.

Endoscopists using the computer program SKOUT (Iterative Scopes) achieved a 27% better detection rate of adenomas per colonoscopy, compared with endoscopists working without computer assistance, said lead author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, director of outcomes research in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University.

The study showed that AI colonoscopy systems can work in a routine population of U.S. patients, Dr. Shaukat said in an interview.

“As gastroenterologists, we are very excited,” she said.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology and was presented at the annual Digestive Disease^® Week.

Previous research has shown that experienced endoscopists miss many polyps. To improve their detection rate, multiple companies have used machine learning to develop algorithms to identify suspicious areas.

“Once the computer sees the polyp, it puts a bounding box around it,” said Dr. Shaukat. “It draws the attention of the endoscopist to it. It assists the endoscopist but doesn’t replace the endoscopist.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two such systems: EndoScreener (Wision AI) and GI Genius (Cosmo Pharmaceuticals).

The SKOUT algorithm was trained on 3,616 full-length colonoscopy procedure videos from multiple centers. In bench testing, it achieved a 93.5% polyp-level true positive rate and a 2.3% false positive rate.
 

Randomized trial pits AI against standard procedure

To see how well the system works in the clinic, Dr. Shaukat and colleagues recruited 22 U.S. board-certified gastroenterologists from five academic and community centers. The gastroenterologists all had a minimum adenoma detection rate of 25%, defined as the number of colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma is found, divided by the number of colonoscopies performed. All the gastroenterologists had performed a minimum of 1,000 colonoscopy procedures.

The researchers randomly assigned 682 patients to undergo colonoscopy with the SKOUT and 677 to undergo colonoscopy using the standard procedure. The patients were aged 40 years or older and were scheduled for either screening or surveillance.

The endoscopists who received computer assistance detected 1.05 adenomas per colonoscopy versus 0.83 for those who did not have computer assistance, a statistically significant difference.

The proportion of resections with clinically significant histology was 71.7% with standard colonoscopies versus 67.4% with computer-assisted colonoscopies. This fell within the 14% margin that the researchers had set to show noninferiority for the computer system.

“The important thing is not just detecting all polyps but the polyps we care about, which are adenomas, and doing so without increasing the false positive rate,” said Dr. Shaukat.

The adenoma detection rate was 43.9% for the standard procedure and 47.8% for the computer-assisted procedure. This difference was not statistically significant, but Dr. Shaukat argued that the adenoma detection rate is not the best measure of success, because endoscopists sometimes stop looking for polyps once they find one.

The overall sessile serrated lesion detection rate for the standard colonoscopies was 16.0% versus 12.6% for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which also was not statistically significant.
 

Next steps

This study is important because it was a large, multicenter trial in the United States, said Omer Ahmad, BSc, MBBS, MRCP, a gastroenterologist and clinical researcher at University College London, who was not involved in the study. Most of the trials of AI have been in China or Europe. “It was very important just to see this replicated in the U.S. population.”

The average procedure time was 15.41 minutes for the standard colonoscopies versus 15.82 minutes for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which was not statistically different.

“It is important to note that the studies so far suggest that false positives do not have a significant impact on workflow,” said Dr. Ahmad.

The next crucial step in evaluating AI colonoscopy will be to track the effects over the long term, said Dr. Shaukat.

“As these technologies get approved and we see them in practice, we need to see that it’s leading to some outcome, like reduced colon cancer,” she said.

That also may be necessary before payers in the United States are willing to pay the additional cost for this technology, she added.

In the meantime, Dr. Ahmad said computer assistance is improving his own colonoscopies.

“I have found the systems have spotted some polyps that I may have otherwise missed,” he said. “There is a false positive rate, but for me, it doesn’t distract from my workflow.”

He believes the systems will be particularly helpful in improving the performance of less-skilled endoscopists.

He is also looking forward to systems that can help complete the reports needed at the end of each colonoscopy. “Most of us dislike having to write a laborious report and having to code everything at the end of the procedure,” he said.

The study was funded by Iterative Scopes. Dr. Shaukat reported having received research funding to her institution for the current study from Iterative Scopes and consulting fees from Freenome and Medtronic. Dr. Ahmad reports receiving speaker fees from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology/Medtronic.

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

A new artificial intelligence (AI) system can help expert endoscopists improve their colonoscopies, a new study indicates.

Endoscopists using the computer program SKOUT (Iterative Scopes) achieved a 27% better detection rate of adenomas per colonoscopy, compared with endoscopists working without computer assistance, said lead author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, director of outcomes research in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University.

The study showed that AI colonoscopy systems can work in a routine population of U.S. patients, Dr. Shaukat said in an interview.

“As gastroenterologists, we are very excited,” she said.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology and was presented at the annual Digestive Disease^® Week.

Previous research has shown that experienced endoscopists miss many polyps. To improve their detection rate, multiple companies have used machine learning to develop algorithms to identify suspicious areas.

“Once the computer sees the polyp, it puts a bounding box around it,” said Dr. Shaukat. “It draws the attention of the endoscopist to it. It assists the endoscopist but doesn’t replace the endoscopist.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two such systems: EndoScreener (Wision AI) and GI Genius (Cosmo Pharmaceuticals).

The SKOUT algorithm was trained on 3,616 full-length colonoscopy procedure videos from multiple centers. In bench testing, it achieved a 93.5% polyp-level true positive rate and a 2.3% false positive rate.
 

Randomized trial pits AI against standard procedure

To see how well the system works in the clinic, Dr. Shaukat and colleagues recruited 22 U.S. board-certified gastroenterologists from five academic and community centers. The gastroenterologists all had a minimum adenoma detection rate of 25%, defined as the number of colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma is found, divided by the number of colonoscopies performed. All the gastroenterologists had performed a minimum of 1,000 colonoscopy procedures.

The researchers randomly assigned 682 patients to undergo colonoscopy with the SKOUT and 677 to undergo colonoscopy using the standard procedure. The patients were aged 40 years or older and were scheduled for either screening or surveillance.

The endoscopists who received computer assistance detected 1.05 adenomas per colonoscopy versus 0.83 for those who did not have computer assistance, a statistically significant difference.

The proportion of resections with clinically significant histology was 71.7% with standard colonoscopies versus 67.4% with computer-assisted colonoscopies. This fell within the 14% margin that the researchers had set to show noninferiority for the computer system.

“The important thing is not just detecting all polyps but the polyps we care about, which are adenomas, and doing so without increasing the false positive rate,” said Dr. Shaukat.

The adenoma detection rate was 43.9% for the standard procedure and 47.8% for the computer-assisted procedure. This difference was not statistically significant, but Dr. Shaukat argued that the adenoma detection rate is not the best measure of success, because endoscopists sometimes stop looking for polyps once they find one.

The overall sessile serrated lesion detection rate for the standard colonoscopies was 16.0% versus 12.6% for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which also was not statistically significant.
 

Next steps

This study is important because it was a large, multicenter trial in the United States, said Omer Ahmad, BSc, MBBS, MRCP, a gastroenterologist and clinical researcher at University College London, who was not involved in the study. Most of the trials of AI have been in China or Europe. “It was very important just to see this replicated in the U.S. population.”

The average procedure time was 15.41 minutes for the standard colonoscopies versus 15.82 minutes for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which was not statistically different.

“It is important to note that the studies so far suggest that false positives do not have a significant impact on workflow,” said Dr. Ahmad.

The next crucial step in evaluating AI colonoscopy will be to track the effects over the long term, said Dr. Shaukat.

“As these technologies get approved and we see them in practice, we need to see that it’s leading to some outcome, like reduced colon cancer,” she said.

That also may be necessary before payers in the United States are willing to pay the additional cost for this technology, she added.

In the meantime, Dr. Ahmad said computer assistance is improving his own colonoscopies.

“I have found the systems have spotted some polyps that I may have otherwise missed,” he said. “There is a false positive rate, but for me, it doesn’t distract from my workflow.”

He believes the systems will be particularly helpful in improving the performance of less-skilled endoscopists.

He is also looking forward to systems that can help complete the reports needed at the end of each colonoscopy. “Most of us dislike having to write a laborious report and having to code everything at the end of the procedure,” he said.

The study was funded by Iterative Scopes. Dr. Shaukat reported having received research funding to her institution for the current study from Iterative Scopes and consulting fees from Freenome and Medtronic. Dr. Ahmad reports receiving speaker fees from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology/Medtronic.

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

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, also known as liso-cel (Breyanzi), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the second-line treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL).

This expanded indication is based on findings from the pivotal phase 3 TRANSFORM study, which showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy over salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplant. The latter course of treatment had been the standard of care for more than 2 decades.

Data from the global, randomized, multicenter TRANSFORM study, as reported in December 2021 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that second-line treatment with liso-cel in 92 patients with r/r LBCL within 12 months after first-line therapy, compared with 92 patient who received standard of care therapy, was associated with highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (10.1 vs. 2.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.349), complete response rate (66% vs. 39%), and progression-free survival (14.8 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.406).

A positive trend in overall survival was also observed (HR, 0.509 at median follow-up of 6.2 months). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the second-line setting.

Liso-cel was initially approved in February 2021 for the treatment of adults with LBCL, including diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B, who have:

• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant because of comorbidities or age.

Liso-cel is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.

In February 2022, the FDA granted Priority Review status for a Bristol-Myers Squibb supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA), based on the TRANSFORM study data, to expand the indication to include use after the failure of first-line therapy.

The agent “now has the potential to be a new standard of care for patients after failure of first-line therapy, offering significantly improved outcomes beyond the current mainstay of care,” Anne Kerber, the BMS senior vice president of cell therapy development, said in a press release at that time.

The European Medicines Agency has also validated a type II variation application for extension of the indication for liso-cel in this setting. Validation of the application “confirms the submission is complete and begins the EMA’s centralized review procedure,” BMS announced in a June 20, 2022, press release.

Liso-cel, which has been available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, includes a boxed warning regarding the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicities.

The warning states that liso-cel should not be administered to patients with active infection or inflammatory disorders, and that severe or life-threatening CRS should be treated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroids.

Patients should also be monitored for neurologic events after treatment with liso-cel, and supportive care and/or corticosteroids should be administered as needed.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, also known as liso-cel (Breyanzi), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the second-line treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL).

This expanded indication is based on findings from the pivotal phase 3 TRANSFORM study, which showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy over salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplant. The latter course of treatment had been the standard of care for more than 2 decades.

Data from the global, randomized, multicenter TRANSFORM study, as reported in December 2021 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that second-line treatment with liso-cel in 92 patients with r/r LBCL within 12 months after first-line therapy, compared with 92 patient who received standard of care therapy, was associated with highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (10.1 vs. 2.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.349), complete response rate (66% vs. 39%), and progression-free survival (14.8 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.406).

A positive trend in overall survival was also observed (HR, 0.509 at median follow-up of 6.2 months). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the second-line setting.

Liso-cel was initially approved in February 2021 for the treatment of adults with LBCL, including diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B, who have:

• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant because of comorbidities or age.

Liso-cel is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.

In February 2022, the FDA granted Priority Review status for a Bristol-Myers Squibb supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA), based on the TRANSFORM study data, to expand the indication to include use after the failure of first-line therapy.

The agent “now has the potential to be a new standard of care for patients after failure of first-line therapy, offering significantly improved outcomes beyond the current mainstay of care,” Anne Kerber, the BMS senior vice president of cell therapy development, said in a press release at that time.

The European Medicines Agency has also validated a type II variation application for extension of the indication for liso-cel in this setting. Validation of the application “confirms the submission is complete and begins the EMA’s centralized review procedure,” BMS announced in a June 20, 2022, press release.

Liso-cel, which has been available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, includes a boxed warning regarding the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicities.

The warning states that liso-cel should not be administered to patients with active infection or inflammatory disorders, and that severe or life-threatening CRS should be treated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroids.

Patients should also be monitored for neurologic events after treatment with liso-cel, and supportive care and/or corticosteroids should be administered as needed.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, also known as liso-cel (Breyanzi), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the second-line treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL).

This expanded indication is based on findings from the pivotal phase 3 TRANSFORM study, which showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy over salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplant. The latter course of treatment had been the standard of care for more than 2 decades.

Data from the global, randomized, multicenter TRANSFORM study, as reported in December 2021 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that second-line treatment with liso-cel in 92 patients with r/r LBCL within 12 months after first-line therapy, compared with 92 patient who received standard of care therapy, was associated with highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (10.1 vs. 2.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.349), complete response rate (66% vs. 39%), and progression-free survival (14.8 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.406).

A positive trend in overall survival was also observed (HR, 0.509 at median follow-up of 6.2 months). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the second-line setting.

Liso-cel was initially approved in February 2021 for the treatment of adults with LBCL, including diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B, who have:

• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant because of comorbidities or age.

Liso-cel is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.

In February 2022, the FDA granted Priority Review status for a Bristol-Myers Squibb supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA), based on the TRANSFORM study data, to expand the indication to include use after the failure of first-line therapy.

The agent “now has the potential to be a new standard of care for patients after failure of first-line therapy, offering significantly improved outcomes beyond the current mainstay of care,” Anne Kerber, the BMS senior vice president of cell therapy development, said in a press release at that time.

The European Medicines Agency has also validated a type II variation application for extension of the indication for liso-cel in this setting. Validation of the application “confirms the submission is complete and begins the EMA’s centralized review procedure,” BMS announced in a June 20, 2022, press release.

Liso-cel, which has been available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, includes a boxed warning regarding the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicities.

The warning states that liso-cel should not be administered to patients with active infection or inflammatory disorders, and that severe or life-threatening CRS should be treated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroids.

Patients should also be monitored for neurologic events after treatment with liso-cel, and supportive care and/or corticosteroids should be administered as needed.

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.

However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.

One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.

Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).

Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
 

Vaccine response

The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.

The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).

The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.

Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.

“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.

“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.

Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.

“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.

He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”

That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.

“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
 

Favorable findings

Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.

The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.

“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.

In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.

To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.

Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.

“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
 

Ponesimod results

In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.

The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.

Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.

Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.

A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.

None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.

“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.

“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.

In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.

“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
 

Concerns remain

In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.

“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.

“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.

Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”

Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.

“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.

Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.

However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.

One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.

Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).

Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
 

Vaccine response

The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.

The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).

The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.

Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.

“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.

“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.

Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.

“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.

He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”

That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.

“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
 

Favorable findings

Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.

The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.

“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.

In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.

To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.

Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.

“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
 

Ponesimod results

In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.

The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.

Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.

Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.

A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.

None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.

“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.

“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.

In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.

“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
 

Concerns remain

In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.

“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.

“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.

Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”

Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.

“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.

Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.

However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.

One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.

Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).

Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
 

Vaccine response

The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.

The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).

The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.

Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.

“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.

“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.

Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.

“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.

He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”

That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.

“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
 

Favorable findings

Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.

The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.

“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.

In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.

To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.

Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.

“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
 

Ponesimod results

In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.

The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.

Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.

Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.

A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.

None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.

“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.

“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.

In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.

“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
 

Concerns remain

In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.

“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.

“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.

Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”

Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.

“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.

Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.

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

Over the past decade, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved new cancer drugs twice as fast as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), often using accelerated pathways, a new analysis shows.

Between 2010 and 2019, the FDA approved almost all oncology therapies ahead of the EMA. Drugs entered the United States market about 8 months (241 days) before European market authorization.

But do quicker review times translate to wins for patients?

“The faster FDA approval process potentially provides earlier access to potentially life-prolonging medications for patients with cancer in the United States,” Ali Raza Khaki, MD, department of oncology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization. “On the surface, this is a good thing. However, it comes with limitations.”

Earlier drug approval often means greater uncertainty about an agent’s benefit – most notably, whether it will improve a patient’s survival or quality of life. Dr. Khaki pointed to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, which found that only 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drugs that had been recently approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway demonstrated an improvement in overall survival.

In the new study, published online in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Khaki and colleagues found that among the 89 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between January 2010 and December 2019, the FDA approved 85 (95%) before European authorization and four (5%) after.

The researchers found that the median FDA review time was half that of the EMA’s (200 vs. 426 days). Furthermore, 64 new drug applications (72%) were submitted to the FDA first, compared with 21 (23%) to the EMA.

Of the drugs approved through an accelerated pathway, three were ultimately pulled from the U.S. market, compared with one in Europe.

“These early drug approvals that later lead to withdrawal expose many more patients to toxicity, including financial toxicity, given the high cost of cancer medications,” Dr. Khaki commented.

In addition, 35 oncology therapies (39%) were approved by the FDA before trial results were published, compared with only eight (9%) by the EMA. Although FDA drug labels contain some information about efficacy and toxicity, scientific publications often have much more, including details about study populations and toxicities.

“Without this information, providers may be limited in their knowledge about patient selection, clinical benefit, and optimal toxicity management,” Dr. Khaki said.

Jeff Allen PhD, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research, who wasn’t involved in the study, believes that an FDA approval before publication shouldn’t be “particularly concerning.”

“Peer-reviewed publication is an important component of validating and communicating scientific findings, but the processes and time lines for individual journals can be highly variable,” he said. “I don’t think we would want to see a situation where potential beneficial treatments are held up due to unrelated publication processes.”

The author of an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open had a different take on the study findings.

“A tempting interpretation” of this study is that the FDA is a “superior agency for expedited review times that bring cancer drugs to patients earlier,” Kristina Jenei, BSN, MSc, with the University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health, writes. In addition, the fact that more drugs were pulled from the market after approval in the United States than in Europe could be interpreted to mean that the system is working as it should.

Although the speed of FDA reviews and the number of subsequent approvals have increased over time, the proportion of cancer drugs that improve survival has declined. In addition, because the FDA’s follow-up of postmarketing studies has been “inconsistent,” a substantial number of cancer drugs that were approved through accelerated pathways have remained on the market for years without confirmation of their benefit.

Although regulatory agencies must balance earlier patient access to novel treatments with evidence that the therapies are effective and safe, “faster review times and approvals are not cause for celebration; better patient outcomes are,” Ms. Jenei writes. “In other words, quality over quantity.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khaki reported stock ownership from Merck and stock ownership from Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Allen and Ms. Jenei have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past decade, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved new cancer drugs twice as fast as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), often using accelerated pathways, a new analysis shows.

Between 2010 and 2019, the FDA approved almost all oncology therapies ahead of the EMA. Drugs entered the United States market about 8 months (241 days) before European market authorization.

But do quicker review times translate to wins for patients?

“The faster FDA approval process potentially provides earlier access to potentially life-prolonging medications for patients with cancer in the United States,” Ali Raza Khaki, MD, department of oncology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization. “On the surface, this is a good thing. However, it comes with limitations.”

Earlier drug approval often means greater uncertainty about an agent’s benefit – most notably, whether it will improve a patient’s survival or quality of life. Dr. Khaki pointed to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, which found that only 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drugs that had been recently approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway demonstrated an improvement in overall survival.

In the new study, published online in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Khaki and colleagues found that among the 89 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between January 2010 and December 2019, the FDA approved 85 (95%) before European authorization and four (5%) after.

The researchers found that the median FDA review time was half that of the EMA’s (200 vs. 426 days). Furthermore, 64 new drug applications (72%) were submitted to the FDA first, compared with 21 (23%) to the EMA.

Of the drugs approved through an accelerated pathway, three were ultimately pulled from the U.S. market, compared with one in Europe.

“These early drug approvals that later lead to withdrawal expose many more patients to toxicity, including financial toxicity, given the high cost of cancer medications,” Dr. Khaki commented.

In addition, 35 oncology therapies (39%) were approved by the FDA before trial results were published, compared with only eight (9%) by the EMA. Although FDA drug labels contain some information about efficacy and toxicity, scientific publications often have much more, including details about study populations and toxicities.

“Without this information, providers may be limited in their knowledge about patient selection, clinical benefit, and optimal toxicity management,” Dr. Khaki said.

Jeff Allen PhD, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research, who wasn’t involved in the study, believes that an FDA approval before publication shouldn’t be “particularly concerning.”

“Peer-reviewed publication is an important component of validating and communicating scientific findings, but the processes and time lines for individual journals can be highly variable,” he said. “I don’t think we would want to see a situation where potential beneficial treatments are held up due to unrelated publication processes.”

The author of an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open had a different take on the study findings.

“A tempting interpretation” of this study is that the FDA is a “superior agency for expedited review times that bring cancer drugs to patients earlier,” Kristina Jenei, BSN, MSc, with the University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health, writes. In addition, the fact that more drugs were pulled from the market after approval in the United States than in Europe could be interpreted to mean that the system is working as it should.

Although the speed of FDA reviews and the number of subsequent approvals have increased over time, the proportion of cancer drugs that improve survival has declined. In addition, because the FDA’s follow-up of postmarketing studies has been “inconsistent,” a substantial number of cancer drugs that were approved through accelerated pathways have remained on the market for years without confirmation of their benefit.

Although regulatory agencies must balance earlier patient access to novel treatments with evidence that the therapies are effective and safe, “faster review times and approvals are not cause for celebration; better patient outcomes are,” Ms. Jenei writes. “In other words, quality over quantity.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khaki reported stock ownership from Merck and stock ownership from Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Allen and Ms. Jenei have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past decade, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved new cancer drugs twice as fast as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), often using accelerated pathways, a new analysis shows.

Between 2010 and 2019, the FDA approved almost all oncology therapies ahead of the EMA. Drugs entered the United States market about 8 months (241 days) before European market authorization.

But do quicker review times translate to wins for patients?

“The faster FDA approval process potentially provides earlier access to potentially life-prolonging medications for patients with cancer in the United States,” Ali Raza Khaki, MD, department of oncology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization. “On the surface, this is a good thing. However, it comes with limitations.”

Earlier drug approval often means greater uncertainty about an agent’s benefit – most notably, whether it will improve a patient’s survival or quality of life. Dr. Khaki pointed to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, which found that only 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drugs that had been recently approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway demonstrated an improvement in overall survival.

In the new study, published online in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Khaki and colleagues found that among the 89 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between January 2010 and December 2019, the FDA approved 85 (95%) before European authorization and four (5%) after.

The researchers found that the median FDA review time was half that of the EMA’s (200 vs. 426 days). Furthermore, 64 new drug applications (72%) were submitted to the FDA first, compared with 21 (23%) to the EMA.

Of the drugs approved through an accelerated pathway, three were ultimately pulled from the U.S. market, compared with one in Europe.

“These early drug approvals that later lead to withdrawal expose many more patients to toxicity, including financial toxicity, given the high cost of cancer medications,” Dr. Khaki commented.

In addition, 35 oncology therapies (39%) were approved by the FDA before trial results were published, compared with only eight (9%) by the EMA. Although FDA drug labels contain some information about efficacy and toxicity, scientific publications often have much more, including details about study populations and toxicities.

“Without this information, providers may be limited in their knowledge about patient selection, clinical benefit, and optimal toxicity management,” Dr. Khaki said.

Jeff Allen PhD, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research, who wasn’t involved in the study, believes that an FDA approval before publication shouldn’t be “particularly concerning.”

“Peer-reviewed publication is an important component of validating and communicating scientific findings, but the processes and time lines for individual journals can be highly variable,” he said. “I don’t think we would want to see a situation where potential beneficial treatments are held up due to unrelated publication processes.”

The author of an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open had a different take on the study findings.

“A tempting interpretation” of this study is that the FDA is a “superior agency for expedited review times that bring cancer drugs to patients earlier,” Kristina Jenei, BSN, MSc, with the University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health, writes. In addition, the fact that more drugs were pulled from the market after approval in the United States than in Europe could be interpreted to mean that the system is working as it should.

Although the speed of FDA reviews and the number of subsequent approvals have increased over time, the proportion of cancer drugs that improve survival has declined. In addition, because the FDA’s follow-up of postmarketing studies has been “inconsistent,” a substantial number of cancer drugs that were approved through accelerated pathways have remained on the market for years without confirmation of their benefit.

Although regulatory agencies must balance earlier patient access to novel treatments with evidence that the therapies are effective and safe, “faster review times and approvals are not cause for celebration; better patient outcomes are,” Ms. Jenei writes. “In other words, quality over quantity.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khaki reported stock ownership from Merck and stock ownership from Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Allen and Ms. Jenei have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.