Feature

The updated draft recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that would lower the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms by a decade for all average-risk women is not justified, experts argue in a “dissenting view” published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The proposed change would affect more than 20 million U.S. women, and it’s “hard to see any potential benefits associated with lowering the starting age,” coauthor Steven Woloshin, MD, with Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an NEJM podcast.

Back in May, when USPSTF released the draft recommendation, task force member John Wong, MD, with Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview, “It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women.”

But, according to Dr. Woloshin, there is no recent evidence that mortality from breast cancer is increasing in young women.

In fact, the United States has seen a steady decrease in breast cancer mortality, especially among younger women. Breast cancer mortality among women under 50 “has been cut in half over the past 30 years,” Dr. Woloshin and coauthors explained.

Another wrinkle: The task force did not base its recent recommendation on randomized trial data. In fact, there have been no new randomized trials of screening mammography for women in their 40s since 2016. Instead, the task force relied on statistical models to “estimate what might happen if the starting age were lowered,” Dr. Woloshin and colleagues said.

Relying on a statistical model, however, “is problematic because it has some very optimistic assumptions about the benefit of mammography,” Dr. Woloshin said in the podcast. For instance, the models assume that screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 25%.

That 25% reduction is “far greater than what’s reported in the meta-analyses of the available randomized trials,” Dr. Woloshin explained. The meta-analyses report about a 16% reduction for all the trials combined and an estimated 13% for trials at low risk of bias. But “even these meta-analyses are likely to overstate the effect of screening since the trials were done before the major advances in treatment.”

In their own calculations, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues found that lowering the screening age to 40 came with a small potential benefit and a substantial risk for harm.

Combing data from the National Cancer Institute, the team reported that the risk for death for women in their 40s from any cause over the next 10 years was about 3% whether or not they received their biennial mammogram.

The risk for death from breast cancer in that time was 0.23% with mammograms – about 2 in every 1,000 women – and 0.31% without. “That’s 1 less breast cancer death per 1,000 women screened for 10 years,” Dr. Woloshin said.

Put another way, with mammography screening, “the chance of not dying from breast cancer over the next 10 years increases from 99.7% to 99.8%,” Dr. Woloshin said.

The benefit is arguably small, while the harms appear quite significant, Dr. Woloshin said. About 36% of women who begin screening at age 40 would have at least one false alarm over 10 years, and almost 7% would have a false alarm requiring a biopsy in that time frame.
 

Ease or exacerbate racial disparity?

Another argument that the USPSTF highlighted for lowering the screening age: Research indicates that Black women get breast cancer at younger ages and are more likely to die of the disease, compared with White women.

Dr. Woloshin and coauthors, however, also took issue with the view that lowering the screening age could reduce disparities between Black and White women.

“There’s no question that there are substantial differences between Black and White women in terms of breast cancer mortality, but there’s actually very little disparity in breast cancer screening – about 60% of Black and White women in their 40s are screened regularly in the United States,” Dr. Woloshin explained in the podcast.

Therefore, it’s “really hard to imagine” how recommending the same intervention to both groups could possibly reduce the disparity, he said.

“The disparity is not a reflection of screening. It reflects differences in cancer biology,” he added. “Black women are at higher risk for more aggressive, fast-growing cancers that are less likely to be caught by screening and unfortunately are less likely to benefit from treatment.”

Earlier screening would also not address the problems facing poor women, who tend to be disproportionately Black, such as lower quality of available medical services, follow-up delays after abnormal scans, treatment delays, and less use of adjuvant therapy, Dr. Woloshin cautioned.

In Dr. Woloshin’s view, lowering the screening age, which broadens the eligible population, may actually “exacerbate problems contributing to disparity by diverting resources toward expanded screening rather than doing what we know works by ensuring that high-quality treatments are more readily accessible to poor women with breast cancer.”
 

Reconsider the change?

Because task force recommendations are so influential, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues worry that mammography screening for women in their 40s will probably become a performance measure.

“Our concern is that, rather than fostering informed decisions, clinicians and practices are going to be judged and rewarded and punished based on compliance with this quality metric,” Dr. Woloshin said.

That’s a problem, he noted, “because women should be able to make the decision for themselves rather than having this be a public health imperative, which is imposed by physicians and practices who are incentivized to meet a quality metric.”

The hope, said Dr. Woloshin, is that this prospective piece will help influence the task force to “reconsider the recommendation, because we think that the bottom line is that their models are insufficient to support a new imperative. The benefits are really limited, and there are really common and important harms for healthy women.”

The comment period for the draft recommendation is now closed, and a final decision from the task force is forthcoming.

The research had no funding. Dr. Woloshin has no relevant disclosures.

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

The updated draft recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that would lower the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms by a decade for all average-risk women is not justified, experts argue in a “dissenting view” published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The proposed change would affect more than 20 million U.S. women, and it’s “hard to see any potential benefits associated with lowering the starting age,” coauthor Steven Woloshin, MD, with Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an NEJM podcast.

Back in May, when USPSTF released the draft recommendation, task force member John Wong, MD, with Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview, “It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women.”

But, according to Dr. Woloshin, there is no recent evidence that mortality from breast cancer is increasing in young women.

In fact, the United States has seen a steady decrease in breast cancer mortality, especially among younger women. Breast cancer mortality among women under 50 “has been cut in half over the past 30 years,” Dr. Woloshin and coauthors explained.

Another wrinkle: The task force did not base its recent recommendation on randomized trial data. In fact, there have been no new randomized trials of screening mammography for women in their 40s since 2016. Instead, the task force relied on statistical models to “estimate what might happen if the starting age were lowered,” Dr. Woloshin and colleagues said.

Relying on a statistical model, however, “is problematic because it has some very optimistic assumptions about the benefit of mammography,” Dr. Woloshin said in the podcast. For instance, the models assume that screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 25%.

That 25% reduction is “far greater than what’s reported in the meta-analyses of the available randomized trials,” Dr. Woloshin explained. The meta-analyses report about a 16% reduction for all the trials combined and an estimated 13% for trials at low risk of bias. But “even these meta-analyses are likely to overstate the effect of screening since the trials were done before the major advances in treatment.”

In their own calculations, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues found that lowering the screening age to 40 came with a small potential benefit and a substantial risk for harm.

Combing data from the National Cancer Institute, the team reported that the risk for death for women in their 40s from any cause over the next 10 years was about 3% whether or not they received their biennial mammogram.

The risk for death from breast cancer in that time was 0.23% with mammograms – about 2 in every 1,000 women – and 0.31% without. “That’s 1 less breast cancer death per 1,000 women screened for 10 years,” Dr. Woloshin said.

Put another way, with mammography screening, “the chance of not dying from breast cancer over the next 10 years increases from 99.7% to 99.8%,” Dr. Woloshin said.

The benefit is arguably small, while the harms appear quite significant, Dr. Woloshin said. About 36% of women who begin screening at age 40 would have at least one false alarm over 10 years, and almost 7% would have a false alarm requiring a biopsy in that time frame.
 

Ease or exacerbate racial disparity?

Another argument that the USPSTF highlighted for lowering the screening age: Research indicates that Black women get breast cancer at younger ages and are more likely to die of the disease, compared with White women.

Dr. Woloshin and coauthors, however, also took issue with the view that lowering the screening age could reduce disparities between Black and White women.

“There’s no question that there are substantial differences between Black and White women in terms of breast cancer mortality, but there’s actually very little disparity in breast cancer screening – about 60% of Black and White women in their 40s are screened regularly in the United States,” Dr. Woloshin explained in the podcast.

Therefore, it’s “really hard to imagine” how recommending the same intervention to both groups could possibly reduce the disparity, he said.

“The disparity is not a reflection of screening. It reflects differences in cancer biology,” he added. “Black women are at higher risk for more aggressive, fast-growing cancers that are less likely to be caught by screening and unfortunately are less likely to benefit from treatment.”

Earlier screening would also not address the problems facing poor women, who tend to be disproportionately Black, such as lower quality of available medical services, follow-up delays after abnormal scans, treatment delays, and less use of adjuvant therapy, Dr. Woloshin cautioned.

In Dr. Woloshin’s view, lowering the screening age, which broadens the eligible population, may actually “exacerbate problems contributing to disparity by diverting resources toward expanded screening rather than doing what we know works by ensuring that high-quality treatments are more readily accessible to poor women with breast cancer.”
 

Reconsider the change?

Because task force recommendations are so influential, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues worry that mammography screening for women in their 40s will probably become a performance measure.

“Our concern is that, rather than fostering informed decisions, clinicians and practices are going to be judged and rewarded and punished based on compliance with this quality metric,” Dr. Woloshin said.

That’s a problem, he noted, “because women should be able to make the decision for themselves rather than having this be a public health imperative, which is imposed by physicians and practices who are incentivized to meet a quality metric.”

The hope, said Dr. Woloshin, is that this prospective piece will help influence the task force to “reconsider the recommendation, because we think that the bottom line is that their models are insufficient to support a new imperative. The benefits are really limited, and there are really common and important harms for healthy women.”

The comment period for the draft recommendation is now closed, and a final decision from the task force is forthcoming.

The research had no funding. Dr. Woloshin has no relevant disclosures.

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

The updated draft recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that would lower the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms by a decade for all average-risk women is not justified, experts argue in a “dissenting view” published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The proposed change would affect more than 20 million U.S. women, and it’s “hard to see any potential benefits associated with lowering the starting age,” coauthor Steven Woloshin, MD, with Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an NEJM podcast.

Back in May, when USPSTF released the draft recommendation, task force member John Wong, MD, with Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview, “It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women.”

But, according to Dr. Woloshin, there is no recent evidence that mortality from breast cancer is increasing in young women.

In fact, the United States has seen a steady decrease in breast cancer mortality, especially among younger women. Breast cancer mortality among women under 50 “has been cut in half over the past 30 years,” Dr. Woloshin and coauthors explained.

Another wrinkle: The task force did not base its recent recommendation on randomized trial data. In fact, there have been no new randomized trials of screening mammography for women in their 40s since 2016. Instead, the task force relied on statistical models to “estimate what might happen if the starting age were lowered,” Dr. Woloshin and colleagues said.

Relying on a statistical model, however, “is problematic because it has some very optimistic assumptions about the benefit of mammography,” Dr. Woloshin said in the podcast. For instance, the models assume that screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 25%.

That 25% reduction is “far greater than what’s reported in the meta-analyses of the available randomized trials,” Dr. Woloshin explained. The meta-analyses report about a 16% reduction for all the trials combined and an estimated 13% for trials at low risk of bias. But “even these meta-analyses are likely to overstate the effect of screening since the trials were done before the major advances in treatment.”

In their own calculations, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues found that lowering the screening age to 40 came with a small potential benefit and a substantial risk for harm.

Combing data from the National Cancer Institute, the team reported that the risk for death for women in their 40s from any cause over the next 10 years was about 3% whether or not they received their biennial mammogram.

The risk for death from breast cancer in that time was 0.23% with mammograms – about 2 in every 1,000 women – and 0.31% without. “That’s 1 less breast cancer death per 1,000 women screened for 10 years,” Dr. Woloshin said.

Put another way, with mammography screening, “the chance of not dying from breast cancer over the next 10 years increases from 99.7% to 99.8%,” Dr. Woloshin said.

The benefit is arguably small, while the harms appear quite significant, Dr. Woloshin said. About 36% of women who begin screening at age 40 would have at least one false alarm over 10 years, and almost 7% would have a false alarm requiring a biopsy in that time frame.
 

Ease or exacerbate racial disparity?

Another argument that the USPSTF highlighted for lowering the screening age: Research indicates that Black women get breast cancer at younger ages and are more likely to die of the disease, compared with White women.

Dr. Woloshin and coauthors, however, also took issue with the view that lowering the screening age could reduce disparities between Black and White women.

“There’s no question that there are substantial differences between Black and White women in terms of breast cancer mortality, but there’s actually very little disparity in breast cancer screening – about 60% of Black and White women in their 40s are screened regularly in the United States,” Dr. Woloshin explained in the podcast.

Therefore, it’s “really hard to imagine” how recommending the same intervention to both groups could possibly reduce the disparity, he said.

“The disparity is not a reflection of screening. It reflects differences in cancer biology,” he added. “Black women are at higher risk for more aggressive, fast-growing cancers that are less likely to be caught by screening and unfortunately are less likely to benefit from treatment.”

Earlier screening would also not address the problems facing poor women, who tend to be disproportionately Black, such as lower quality of available medical services, follow-up delays after abnormal scans, treatment delays, and less use of adjuvant therapy, Dr. Woloshin cautioned.

In Dr. Woloshin’s view, lowering the screening age, which broadens the eligible population, may actually “exacerbate problems contributing to disparity by diverting resources toward expanded screening rather than doing what we know works by ensuring that high-quality treatments are more readily accessible to poor women with breast cancer.”
 

Reconsider the change?

Because task force recommendations are so influential, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues worry that mammography screening for women in their 40s will probably become a performance measure.

“Our concern is that, rather than fostering informed decisions, clinicians and practices are going to be judged and rewarded and punished based on compliance with this quality metric,” Dr. Woloshin said.

That’s a problem, he noted, “because women should be able to make the decision for themselves rather than having this be a public health imperative, which is imposed by physicians and practices who are incentivized to meet a quality metric.”

The hope, said Dr. Woloshin, is that this prospective piece will help influence the task force to “reconsider the recommendation, because we think that the bottom line is that their models are insufficient to support a new imperative. The benefits are really limited, and there are really common and important harms for healthy women.”

The comment period for the draft recommendation is now closed, and a final decision from the task force is forthcoming.

The research had no funding. Dr. Woloshin has no relevant disclosures.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

The question looms large for patients with stable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): to taper or not to taper corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy? For patients and the physicians treating them, the evidence points in both directions. Flares are exacerbated by tapering, but simultaneously organ damage is tempered. Where is the balance? What competing factors together inform decision-making?

A recent multinational, observational cohort study conducted by Jiacai Cho, MBBS, of National University Hospital, Singapore, and colleagues, and published in The Lancet Rheumatology concluded that, given the odds of excess flares associated with tapering of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE, drug tapering warrants careful consideration of risks and benefits and is best reserved for those in complete clinical and serological remission with stable disease for at least 6 months. However, in an accompanying editorial, Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, and Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, of the National Referral Center for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases at Cochin Hospital, Paris, and the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics at Paris City University, argued for tipping the scale back from some of those expressed cautions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In interviews, experts in the field expressed both strong appreciation for the cohort study and, like the editorialists, cognizance of its limitations.

Dr. Cho and colleagues recruited 3,002 adult patients with SLE (92.2% female, median age 39.5 years), from 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. They were receiving routine clinical care and had achieved stable disease in at least one of two or more visits. Stable disease was defined by meeting criteria for Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS; SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤ 4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤ 1, and prednisolone ≤ 7.5 mg/day), the 2021 DORIS definition of remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day), or DORIS complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day). Any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate) defined tapering. The investigators compared the odds of disease flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the visit following tapering among those with tapering versus those who had continued the same drug doses.
 

Higher odds of flare with tapering

Tapering, compared with continuing with the same dose, was clearly associated with higher odds of flare at the next visit (11.4% with continuing vs. 17.0% with tapering; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.39; P = .0005). Flares among patients who tapered were also slightly more often severe than with continuing the same dose (21.5% of flares vs. 19.7%). The level of remission at the time of tapering also mattered. Of 2,095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41.1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28.4%) in remission, and 639 (30.5%) in complete remission. Tapering when in LLDAS or remission, compared with complete remission, was associated with a higher likelihood of flare by 1 year (LLDAS: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .029; and remission: OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.94; P = .013). Time to first flare followed the same pattern. Also, sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit and flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.

Take baseline disease status, hydroxychloroquine’s effect into account

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau underscored several factors that may soften the risk for flares seen with tapering. They pointed to higher baseline doses of prednisone and immunosuppressants (and thus likely more severe disease that is more likely to flare) in the patients with tapering. Also, the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index used in the study classifies some clinically insignificant flares as mild to moderate and ignores the benefit of tapering. (It classifies patients as having a severe flare even when starting a new immunosuppressant prescription, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, or both, in an effort to reduce corticosteroid use.) They wrote that the study did not assess the rate of clinically meaningful flares (“essentially renal flares”), nor did it highlight that the “tiny” increase in absolute risk of severe flares (from 2.2% to 3.7%) could be further contextualized by the offset of the smaller, unmeasured rate of clinically significant flares and the “extremely relevant” risk of concomitant damage from prolonged treatment.

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau urged hydroxychloroquine use for all patients unless clearly contraindicated. In their own research, they have detailed hydroxychloroquine benefits in reducing not only flare risk, but also comorbidities, damage, and mortality. In the current study, the prevalence of hydroxychloroquine use in all the patient visits was only 63.3%. “We can assume that if more patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine, both the number of flares and the difference between the two strategies would have been lower,” they wrote. They cited findings from a study of patients in remission for 2 years or longer in the Toronto Lupus Cohort in which a gradual taper of corticosteroids over 1 year was safe and feasible and resulted in less damage accrual at 24 months than not tapering. Optimizing tapering can minimize flare risk, they concluded.

McGill University Health Center

Tapering SLE medications always involves some chance of flare and has to be considered a calculated risk, Sasha Bernatsky, MD, the James McGill professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Long-term prednisone is not good for patients. I have heard it called ‘the miracle drug from hell’ – meaning that, yes, it controls disease, but at a cost of long-term complications. So we must be conscientious about tapering prednisone.” She observed that in the short-term, there may not be a huge risk to keeping a patient on an antimalarial and counseling patients to stay on it because their risk of flare is higher if they taper. Rheumatologists usually agree, however, that after 10 years or more, there is a real chance of retinal toxicity. “In our Montreal cohort, the risk of retinal toxicity was 5% after an average of 12.8 years of antimalarial use. My concern is that if a patient develops SLE in their 20s, how do we decide if we should keep them on an antimalarial for the next 60 or 70 years? If we keep them on the drug from age 25 to 45, and they then get retinal toxicity, they would essentially never be able to be on the drug again. So I do try to keep patients on the lowest dose of an antimalarial that is possible.”

Dr. Bernatsky pointed out further, “We think about tapering other immunosuppressants (such as methotrexate or mycophenolate or azathioprine) quite differently than prednisone tapering. We take our time a bit more, since many patients will tolerate being on standard doses of these drugs fairly well. If or when we do consider tapering these drugs, both our intuition and the literature suggests that someone with worse baseline disease activity or severity, who has needed a lot of steroids and multiple combinations of drugs to control disease, has a higher chance of flaring than someone with milder disease. As the editorial points out, lupus physicians (and their patients) need to think carefully about the patient’s risk profile, and be sure to tailor follow-up based on flare risk.”

Frank discussions with patients about the risks of tapering are needed, she said. “On one hand, there is consensus about how some aspects of lupus should be managed (for example, aggressive treatment of severe nephritis), but on the other hand, when it comes to long-term management and especially discussing tapering, we must have good discussions with patients. When a patient asks if they can taper a drug – many just lower or stop their drugs without asking – I am as honest as I can be, but ultimately have to admit any taper could be associated with a flare. It’s helpful to have actual figures to discuss with patients.”
 

No surprises

“This is an interesting study, which did not produce any surprises,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at University of Toronto and senior scientist at the university’s Schroeder Arthritis Institute, said when asked to comment. “We already knew from previous studies that abrupt withdrawal is not a good idea, and that if you taper when a patient is under conditions of remission, the rate of flare is actually lower than the usual rate of flare that occurs in people who continue on these medications. But the major limitation is that they did not specifically look at those who we would taper in clinical practice. In addition, they do not specify that the patients had to be on low-dose glucocorticoids before tapering, and they combined both immunosuppressive and steroids. It is not clear from the study what the excess flare rate was, or whether the flares were mild or severe. Most flares in patients with SLE are mild, consisting of skin and joint manifestations, while only a few patients have flares in kidney or neurologic manifestations.”

Dr. Gladman described her approach to tapering: “We aim for our patients to be taking no more than 5 mg of prednisone and to be in at least clinical remission with a SLEDAI-2K of 0 for at least 2 years before we would taper to glucocorticoids withdrawal. We always withdraw glucocorticoids first and immunosuppressives later, and keep patients on antimalarials the longest, unless there are specific side effects to the immunosuppressive or antimalarials which require their cessation earlier.”
 

Uncertainty persists

Other SLE experts weighing in confirmed the view that future research should aim to achieve clarity about the relative risks and benefits of tapering SLE drug regimens to maintain disease remission while minimizing potential for organ damage.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Steroids are our friend and our enemy,” Joan T. Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “If a person with lupus is in a lot of trouble, corticosteroids are almost universally a good option to get them out. But for too many decades, for too many patients, despite all the improvements we have made in better understanding the disease and developing some promising new treatments, we have yet to shed the inexorable toxicity in multiple organs of steroid dependence.” She continued, “Corticosteroids, even at low dose, may have broad-spectrum effects. But, in fact, so do many of the more ‘targeted’ agents. If all patients were lined up at the beginning of a study while being given azathioprine or a calcineurin inhibitor or belimumab at a stable, tolerable dose, you might see the same data if you tapered that agent down. What we really need is improved individualized guidance about when and how fast to remove immune modulators from stable patients with lupus without disturbing the balance that had been achieved in such a quiescent patient.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

That enduring uncertainty was echoed by Daniel J. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles: “The take-home message from this interesting paper,” he commented, “is that current lupus biomarkers are not adequate. They do not guide the practitioner well enough, so that all too often medication regimens are tapered even though the risks are not really well known. Also, there is evidence in the literature that fibrosis and ‘damage’ progress even if acute phase reactants such as sedimentation rate, [C-reactive protein], complement 3 and 4, and anti-dsDNA are normal. We don’t have a good metric to detect them.”

Dr. Cho and colleagues’ study was funded by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB. Dr. Gladman disclosed consulting and/or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

The question looms large for patients with stable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): to taper or not to taper corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy? For patients and the physicians treating them, the evidence points in both directions. Flares are exacerbated by tapering, but simultaneously organ damage is tempered. Where is the balance? What competing factors together inform decision-making?

A recent multinational, observational cohort study conducted by Jiacai Cho, MBBS, of National University Hospital, Singapore, and colleagues, and published in The Lancet Rheumatology concluded that, given the odds of excess flares associated with tapering of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE, drug tapering warrants careful consideration of risks and benefits and is best reserved for those in complete clinical and serological remission with stable disease for at least 6 months. However, in an accompanying editorial, Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, and Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, of the National Referral Center for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases at Cochin Hospital, Paris, and the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics at Paris City University, argued for tipping the scale back from some of those expressed cautions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In interviews, experts in the field expressed both strong appreciation for the cohort study and, like the editorialists, cognizance of its limitations.

Dr. Cho and colleagues recruited 3,002 adult patients with SLE (92.2% female, median age 39.5 years), from 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. They were receiving routine clinical care and had achieved stable disease in at least one of two or more visits. Stable disease was defined by meeting criteria for Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS; SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤ 4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤ 1, and prednisolone ≤ 7.5 mg/day), the 2021 DORIS definition of remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day), or DORIS complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day). Any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate) defined tapering. The investigators compared the odds of disease flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the visit following tapering among those with tapering versus those who had continued the same drug doses.
 

Higher odds of flare with tapering

Tapering, compared with continuing with the same dose, was clearly associated with higher odds of flare at the next visit (11.4% with continuing vs. 17.0% with tapering; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.39; P = .0005). Flares among patients who tapered were also slightly more often severe than with continuing the same dose (21.5% of flares vs. 19.7%). The level of remission at the time of tapering also mattered. Of 2,095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41.1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28.4%) in remission, and 639 (30.5%) in complete remission. Tapering when in LLDAS or remission, compared with complete remission, was associated with a higher likelihood of flare by 1 year (LLDAS: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .029; and remission: OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.94; P = .013). Time to first flare followed the same pattern. Also, sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit and flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.

Take baseline disease status, hydroxychloroquine’s effect into account

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau underscored several factors that may soften the risk for flares seen with tapering. They pointed to higher baseline doses of prednisone and immunosuppressants (and thus likely more severe disease that is more likely to flare) in the patients with tapering. Also, the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index used in the study classifies some clinically insignificant flares as mild to moderate and ignores the benefit of tapering. (It classifies patients as having a severe flare even when starting a new immunosuppressant prescription, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, or both, in an effort to reduce corticosteroid use.) They wrote that the study did not assess the rate of clinically meaningful flares (“essentially renal flares”), nor did it highlight that the “tiny” increase in absolute risk of severe flares (from 2.2% to 3.7%) could be further contextualized by the offset of the smaller, unmeasured rate of clinically significant flares and the “extremely relevant” risk of concomitant damage from prolonged treatment.

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau urged hydroxychloroquine use for all patients unless clearly contraindicated. In their own research, they have detailed hydroxychloroquine benefits in reducing not only flare risk, but also comorbidities, damage, and mortality. In the current study, the prevalence of hydroxychloroquine use in all the patient visits was only 63.3%. “We can assume that if more patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine, both the number of flares and the difference between the two strategies would have been lower,” they wrote. They cited findings from a study of patients in remission for 2 years or longer in the Toronto Lupus Cohort in which a gradual taper of corticosteroids over 1 year was safe and feasible and resulted in less damage accrual at 24 months than not tapering. Optimizing tapering can minimize flare risk, they concluded.

McGill University Health Center

Tapering SLE medications always involves some chance of flare and has to be considered a calculated risk, Sasha Bernatsky, MD, the James McGill professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Long-term prednisone is not good for patients. I have heard it called ‘the miracle drug from hell’ – meaning that, yes, it controls disease, but at a cost of long-term complications. So we must be conscientious about tapering prednisone.” She observed that in the short-term, there may not be a huge risk to keeping a patient on an antimalarial and counseling patients to stay on it because their risk of flare is higher if they taper. Rheumatologists usually agree, however, that after 10 years or more, there is a real chance of retinal toxicity. “In our Montreal cohort, the risk of retinal toxicity was 5% after an average of 12.8 years of antimalarial use. My concern is that if a patient develops SLE in their 20s, how do we decide if we should keep them on an antimalarial for the next 60 or 70 years? If we keep them on the drug from age 25 to 45, and they then get retinal toxicity, they would essentially never be able to be on the drug again. So I do try to keep patients on the lowest dose of an antimalarial that is possible.”

Dr. Bernatsky pointed out further, “We think about tapering other immunosuppressants (such as methotrexate or mycophenolate or azathioprine) quite differently than prednisone tapering. We take our time a bit more, since many patients will tolerate being on standard doses of these drugs fairly well. If or when we do consider tapering these drugs, both our intuition and the literature suggests that someone with worse baseline disease activity or severity, who has needed a lot of steroids and multiple combinations of drugs to control disease, has a higher chance of flaring than someone with milder disease. As the editorial points out, lupus physicians (and their patients) need to think carefully about the patient’s risk profile, and be sure to tailor follow-up based on flare risk.”

Frank discussions with patients about the risks of tapering are needed, she said. “On one hand, there is consensus about how some aspects of lupus should be managed (for example, aggressive treatment of severe nephritis), but on the other hand, when it comes to long-term management and especially discussing tapering, we must have good discussions with patients. When a patient asks if they can taper a drug – many just lower or stop their drugs without asking – I am as honest as I can be, but ultimately have to admit any taper could be associated with a flare. It’s helpful to have actual figures to discuss with patients.”
 

No surprises

“This is an interesting study, which did not produce any surprises,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at University of Toronto and senior scientist at the university’s Schroeder Arthritis Institute, said when asked to comment. “We already knew from previous studies that abrupt withdrawal is not a good idea, and that if you taper when a patient is under conditions of remission, the rate of flare is actually lower than the usual rate of flare that occurs in people who continue on these medications. But the major limitation is that they did not specifically look at those who we would taper in clinical practice. In addition, they do not specify that the patients had to be on low-dose glucocorticoids before tapering, and they combined both immunosuppressive and steroids. It is not clear from the study what the excess flare rate was, or whether the flares were mild or severe. Most flares in patients with SLE are mild, consisting of skin and joint manifestations, while only a few patients have flares in kidney or neurologic manifestations.”

Dr. Gladman described her approach to tapering: “We aim for our patients to be taking no more than 5 mg of prednisone and to be in at least clinical remission with a SLEDAI-2K of 0 for at least 2 years before we would taper to glucocorticoids withdrawal. We always withdraw glucocorticoids first and immunosuppressives later, and keep patients on antimalarials the longest, unless there are specific side effects to the immunosuppressive or antimalarials which require their cessation earlier.”
 

Uncertainty persists

Other SLE experts weighing in confirmed the view that future research should aim to achieve clarity about the relative risks and benefits of tapering SLE drug regimens to maintain disease remission while minimizing potential for organ damage.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Steroids are our friend and our enemy,” Joan T. Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “If a person with lupus is in a lot of trouble, corticosteroids are almost universally a good option to get them out. But for too many decades, for too many patients, despite all the improvements we have made in better understanding the disease and developing some promising new treatments, we have yet to shed the inexorable toxicity in multiple organs of steroid dependence.” She continued, “Corticosteroids, even at low dose, may have broad-spectrum effects. But, in fact, so do many of the more ‘targeted’ agents. If all patients were lined up at the beginning of a study while being given azathioprine or a calcineurin inhibitor or belimumab at a stable, tolerable dose, you might see the same data if you tapered that agent down. What we really need is improved individualized guidance about when and how fast to remove immune modulators from stable patients with lupus without disturbing the balance that had been achieved in such a quiescent patient.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

That enduring uncertainty was echoed by Daniel J. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles: “The take-home message from this interesting paper,” he commented, “is that current lupus biomarkers are not adequate. They do not guide the practitioner well enough, so that all too often medication regimens are tapered even though the risks are not really well known. Also, there is evidence in the literature that fibrosis and ‘damage’ progress even if acute phase reactants such as sedimentation rate, [C-reactive protein], complement 3 and 4, and anti-dsDNA are normal. We don’t have a good metric to detect them.”

Dr. Cho and colleagues’ study was funded by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB. Dr. Gladman disclosed consulting and/or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

The question looms large for patients with stable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): to taper or not to taper corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy? For patients and the physicians treating them, the evidence points in both directions. Flares are exacerbated by tapering, but simultaneously organ damage is tempered. Where is the balance? What competing factors together inform decision-making?

A recent multinational, observational cohort study conducted by Jiacai Cho, MBBS, of National University Hospital, Singapore, and colleagues, and published in The Lancet Rheumatology concluded that, given the odds of excess flares associated with tapering of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE, drug tapering warrants careful consideration of risks and benefits and is best reserved for those in complete clinical and serological remission with stable disease for at least 6 months. However, in an accompanying editorial, Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, and Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, of the National Referral Center for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases at Cochin Hospital, Paris, and the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics at Paris City University, argued for tipping the scale back from some of those expressed cautions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In interviews, experts in the field expressed both strong appreciation for the cohort study and, like the editorialists, cognizance of its limitations.

Dr. Cho and colleagues recruited 3,002 adult patients with SLE (92.2% female, median age 39.5 years), from 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. They were receiving routine clinical care and had achieved stable disease in at least one of two or more visits. Stable disease was defined by meeting criteria for Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS; SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤ 4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤ 1, and prednisolone ≤ 7.5 mg/day), the 2021 DORIS definition of remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day), or DORIS complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day). Any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate) defined tapering. The investigators compared the odds of disease flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the visit following tapering among those with tapering versus those who had continued the same drug doses.
 

Higher odds of flare with tapering

Tapering, compared with continuing with the same dose, was clearly associated with higher odds of flare at the next visit (11.4% with continuing vs. 17.0% with tapering; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.39; P = .0005). Flares among patients who tapered were also slightly more often severe than with continuing the same dose (21.5% of flares vs. 19.7%). The level of remission at the time of tapering also mattered. Of 2,095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41.1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28.4%) in remission, and 639 (30.5%) in complete remission. Tapering when in LLDAS or remission, compared with complete remission, was associated with a higher likelihood of flare by 1 year (LLDAS: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .029; and remission: OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.94; P = .013). Time to first flare followed the same pattern. Also, sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit and flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.

Take baseline disease status, hydroxychloroquine’s effect into account

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau underscored several factors that may soften the risk for flares seen with tapering. They pointed to higher baseline doses of prednisone and immunosuppressants (and thus likely more severe disease that is more likely to flare) in the patients with tapering. Also, the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index used in the study classifies some clinically insignificant flares as mild to moderate and ignores the benefit of tapering. (It classifies patients as having a severe flare even when starting a new immunosuppressant prescription, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, or both, in an effort to reduce corticosteroid use.) They wrote that the study did not assess the rate of clinically meaningful flares (“essentially renal flares”), nor did it highlight that the “tiny” increase in absolute risk of severe flares (from 2.2% to 3.7%) could be further contextualized by the offset of the smaller, unmeasured rate of clinically significant flares and the “extremely relevant” risk of concomitant damage from prolonged treatment.

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau urged hydroxychloroquine use for all patients unless clearly contraindicated. In their own research, they have detailed hydroxychloroquine benefits in reducing not only flare risk, but also comorbidities, damage, and mortality. In the current study, the prevalence of hydroxychloroquine use in all the patient visits was only 63.3%. “We can assume that if more patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine, both the number of flares and the difference between the two strategies would have been lower,” they wrote. They cited findings from a study of patients in remission for 2 years or longer in the Toronto Lupus Cohort in which a gradual taper of corticosteroids over 1 year was safe and feasible and resulted in less damage accrual at 24 months than not tapering. Optimizing tapering can minimize flare risk, they concluded.

McGill University Health Center

Tapering SLE medications always involves some chance of flare and has to be considered a calculated risk, Sasha Bernatsky, MD, the James McGill professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Long-term prednisone is not good for patients. I have heard it called ‘the miracle drug from hell’ – meaning that, yes, it controls disease, but at a cost of long-term complications. So we must be conscientious about tapering prednisone.” She observed that in the short-term, there may not be a huge risk to keeping a patient on an antimalarial and counseling patients to stay on it because their risk of flare is higher if they taper. Rheumatologists usually agree, however, that after 10 years or more, there is a real chance of retinal toxicity. “In our Montreal cohort, the risk of retinal toxicity was 5% after an average of 12.8 years of antimalarial use. My concern is that if a patient develops SLE in their 20s, how do we decide if we should keep them on an antimalarial for the next 60 or 70 years? If we keep them on the drug from age 25 to 45, and they then get retinal toxicity, they would essentially never be able to be on the drug again. So I do try to keep patients on the lowest dose of an antimalarial that is possible.”

Dr. Bernatsky pointed out further, “We think about tapering other immunosuppressants (such as methotrexate or mycophenolate or azathioprine) quite differently than prednisone tapering. We take our time a bit more, since many patients will tolerate being on standard doses of these drugs fairly well. If or when we do consider tapering these drugs, both our intuition and the literature suggests that someone with worse baseline disease activity or severity, who has needed a lot of steroids and multiple combinations of drugs to control disease, has a higher chance of flaring than someone with milder disease. As the editorial points out, lupus physicians (and their patients) need to think carefully about the patient’s risk profile, and be sure to tailor follow-up based on flare risk.”

Frank discussions with patients about the risks of tapering are needed, she said. “On one hand, there is consensus about how some aspects of lupus should be managed (for example, aggressive treatment of severe nephritis), but on the other hand, when it comes to long-term management and especially discussing tapering, we must have good discussions with patients. When a patient asks if they can taper a drug – many just lower or stop their drugs without asking – I am as honest as I can be, but ultimately have to admit any taper could be associated with a flare. It’s helpful to have actual figures to discuss with patients.”
 

No surprises

“This is an interesting study, which did not produce any surprises,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at University of Toronto and senior scientist at the university’s Schroeder Arthritis Institute, said when asked to comment. “We already knew from previous studies that abrupt withdrawal is not a good idea, and that if you taper when a patient is under conditions of remission, the rate of flare is actually lower than the usual rate of flare that occurs in people who continue on these medications. But the major limitation is that they did not specifically look at those who we would taper in clinical practice. In addition, they do not specify that the patients had to be on low-dose glucocorticoids before tapering, and they combined both immunosuppressive and steroids. It is not clear from the study what the excess flare rate was, or whether the flares were mild or severe. Most flares in patients with SLE are mild, consisting of skin and joint manifestations, while only a few patients have flares in kidney or neurologic manifestations.”

Dr. Gladman described her approach to tapering: “We aim for our patients to be taking no more than 5 mg of prednisone and to be in at least clinical remission with a SLEDAI-2K of 0 for at least 2 years before we would taper to glucocorticoids withdrawal. We always withdraw glucocorticoids first and immunosuppressives later, and keep patients on antimalarials the longest, unless there are specific side effects to the immunosuppressive or antimalarials which require their cessation earlier.”
 

Uncertainty persists

Other SLE experts weighing in confirmed the view that future research should aim to achieve clarity about the relative risks and benefits of tapering SLE drug regimens to maintain disease remission while minimizing potential for organ damage.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Steroids are our friend and our enemy,” Joan T. Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “If a person with lupus is in a lot of trouble, corticosteroids are almost universally a good option to get them out. But for too many decades, for too many patients, despite all the improvements we have made in better understanding the disease and developing some promising new treatments, we have yet to shed the inexorable toxicity in multiple organs of steroid dependence.” She continued, “Corticosteroids, even at low dose, may have broad-spectrum effects. But, in fact, so do many of the more ‘targeted’ agents. If all patients were lined up at the beginning of a study while being given azathioprine or a calcineurin inhibitor or belimumab at a stable, tolerable dose, you might see the same data if you tapered that agent down. What we really need is improved individualized guidance about when and how fast to remove immune modulators from stable patients with lupus without disturbing the balance that had been achieved in such a quiescent patient.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

That enduring uncertainty was echoed by Daniel J. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles: “The take-home message from this interesting paper,” he commented, “is that current lupus biomarkers are not adequate. They do not guide the practitioner well enough, so that all too often medication regimens are tapered even though the risks are not really well known. Also, there is evidence in the literature that fibrosis and ‘damage’ progress even if acute phase reactants such as sedimentation rate, [C-reactive protein], complement 3 and 4, and anti-dsDNA are normal. We don’t have a good metric to detect them.”

Dr. Cho and colleagues’ study was funded by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB. Dr. Gladman disclosed consulting and/or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

The quest to find an anticoagulant that can prevent strokes, cardiovascular events, and venous thrombosis without significantly increasing risk of bleeding is something of a holy grail in cardiovascular medicine. Could the latest focus of interest in this field – the factor XI inhibitors – be the long–sought-after answer?

Topline results from the largest study so far of a factor XI inhibitor – released on Sep. 18 – are indeed very encouraging. The phase 2 AZALEA-TIMI 71 study was stopped early because of an “overwhelming” reduction in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding shown with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos), compared with apixaban for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Very few other data from this study have yet been released. Full results are due to be presented at the scientific sessions of the American Heart Association in November. Researchers in the field are optimistic that this new class of drugs may allow millions more patients who are at risk of thrombotic events but are concerned about bleeding risk to be treated, with a consequent reduction in strokes and possibly cardiovascular events as well.
 

Why factor XI?

The hope that factor XI inhibitors will prevent pathologic thrombosis with a lower bleeding risk, compared with other anticoagulants, comes down to the role of factor XI in the coagulation cascade.

In natural physiology, there are two ongoing processes: hemostasis – a set of actions that cause bleeding to stop after an injury – and thrombosis – a pathologic clotting process in which thrombus is formed and causes a stroke, MI, or deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

In patients prone to pathologic clotting, such as those with AFib, the balance of these two processes has shifted toward thrombosis, so anticoagulants are used to reduce the thrombotic risks. For many years, the only available oral anticoagulant was warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist that was very effective at preventing strokes but that comes with a high risk for bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and fatal bleeding.

The introduction of the direct-acting anticoagulants (DOACs) a few years ago was a step forward in that these drugs have been shown to be as effective as warfarin but are associated with a lower risk of bleeding, particularly of ICH and fatal bleeding. But they still cause bleeding, and concerns over that risk of bleeding prevent millions of patients from taking these drugs and receiving protection against stroke.

John Alexander, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., a researcher active in this area, notes that “while the DOACs cause less bleeding than warfarin, they still cause two or three times more bleeding than placebo, and there is a huge, unmet need for safer anticoagulants that don’t cause as much bleeding. We are hopeful that factor XI inhibitors might be those anticoagulants.”

The lead investigator the AZALEA study, Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained why it is thought that factor XI inhibitors may be different.

“There’s a lot of different clotting factors, and most of them converge in a central pathway. The problem, therefore, with anticoagulants used to date that block one of these factors is that they prevent clotting but also cause bleeding.

“It has been discovered that factor XI has a really unique position in the cascade of how our body forms clots in that it seems to be important in clot formation, but it doesn’t seem to play a major role in our ability to heal and repair blood vessels.”

Another doctor involved in the field, Manesh Patel, MD, chief of cardiology at Duke University Medical Center, added, “We think that factor XI inhibitors may prevent the pathologic formation of thrombosis while allowing formation of thrombus for natural hemostasis to prevent bleeding. That is why they are so promising.”

This correlates with epidemiologic data suggesting that patients with a genetic factor XI deficiency have low rates of stroke and MI but don’t appear to bleed spontaneously, Dr. Patel notes.
 

Candidates in development

The pharmaceutical industry is on the case with several factor XI inhibitors now in clinical development. At present, three main candidates lead the field. These are abelacimab (Anthos), a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month; and two small molecules, milvexian (BMS/Janssen) and asundexian (Bayer), which are both given orally.

Phase 3 trials of these three factor XI inhibitors have recently started for a variety of thrombotic indications, including the prevention of stroke in patients with AFib, prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with ischemic stroke, and prevention of future cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Dr. Alexander, who has been involved in clinical trials of both milvexian and asundexian, commented: “We have pretty good data from a number of phase 2 trials now that these factor XI inhibitors at the doses used in these studies cause a lot less bleeding than therapeutic doses of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins.”

He pointed out that, in addition to the AZALEA trial with abelacimab, the phase 2 PACIFIC program of studies has shown less bleeding with asundexian than with apixaban in patients with AFib and a similar amount of bleeding as placebo in ACS/stroke patients on top of antiplatelet therapy. Milvexian has also shown similar results in the AXIOMATIC program of studies.

Dr. Ruff noted that the biggest need for new anticoagulants in general is in the AFib population. “Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common medical conditions in the world. Approximately one in every three people will develop AFib in their lifetime, and it is associated with more than a fivefold increased risk of stroke. But up to half of patients with AFib currently do not take anticoagulants because of concerns about bleeding risks, so these patients are being left unprotected from stroke risk.”

Dr. Ruff pointed out that the AZALEA study was the largest and longest study of a factor XI inhibitor to date; 1,287 patients were followed for a median of 2 years.

“This was the first trial of long-term administration of factor XI inhibitor against a full-dose DOAC, and it was stopped because of an overwhelming reduction in a major bleeding with abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban,” he noted. “That is very encouraging. It looks like our quest to develop a safe anticoagulant with much lower rates of bleeding, compared with standard of care, seems to have been borne out. I think the field is very excited that we may finally have something that protects patients from thrombosis whilst being much safer than current agents.”

While all this sounds very promising, for these drugs to be successful, in addition to reducing bleeding risk, they will also have to be effective at preventing strokes and other thrombotic events.

“While we are pretty sure that factor XI inhibitors will cause less bleeding than current anticoagulants, what is unknown still is how effective they will be at preventing pathologic blood clots,” Dr. Alexander points out.

“We have some data from studies of these drugs in DVT prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery which suggest that they are effective in preventing blood clots in that scenario. But we don’t know yet about whether they can prevent pathologic blood clots that occur in AFib patients or in poststroke or post-ACS patients. Phase 3 studies are now underway with these three leading drug candidates which will answer some of these questions.”

Dr. Patel agrees that the efficacy data in the phase 3 trials will be key to the success of these drugs. “That is a very important part of the puzzle that is still missing,” he says.

Dr. Ruff notes that the AZALEA study will provide some data on efficacy. “But we already know that in the orthopedic surgery trials there was a 70%-80% reduction in VTE with abelacimab (at the 150-mg dose going forward) vs. prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin. And we know from the DOACs that the doses preventing clots on the venous side also translated into preventing strokes on the [AFib] side. So that is very encouraging,” Dr. Ruff adds.
 

Potential indications

The three leading factor XI inhibitors have slightly different phase 3 development programs.

Dr. Ruff notes that not every agent is being investigated in phase 3 trials for all the potential indications, but all three are going for the AFib indication. “This is by far the biggest population, the biggest market, and the biggest clinical need for these agents,” he says.

While the milvexian and asundexian trials are using an active comparator – pitting the factor XI inhibitors against apixaban in AFib patients – the Anthos LILAC trial is taking a slightly different approach and is comparing abelacimab with placebo in patients with AFib who are not currently taking an anticoagulant because of concerns about bleeding risk.

Janssen/BMS is conducting two other phase 3 trials of milvexian in their LIBREXIA phase 3 program. Those trials involve poststroke patients and ACS patients. Bayer is also involved in a poststroke trial of asundexian as part of its OCEANIC phase 3 program.

Dr. Ruff points out that anticoagulants currently do not have a large role in the poststroke or post-ACS population. “But the hope is that, if factor XI inhibitors are so safe, then there will be more enthusiasm about using an anticoagulant on top of antiplatelet therapy, which is the cornerstone of therapy in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

In addition to its phase 3 LILAC study in patients with AFib, Anthos is conducting two major phase 3 trials with abelacimab for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Ruff notes that the indication of postsurgery or general prevention of VTE is not being pursued at present.

“The orthopedic surgery studies were done mainly for dose finding and proof of principle reasons,” he explains. “In orthopedic surgery the window for anticoagulation is quite short – a few weeks or months. And for the prevention of recurrent VTE in general in the community, those people are at a relatively low risk of bleeding, so there may not be much advantage of the factor XI inhibitors, whereas AFib patients and those with stroke or ACS are usually older and have a much higher bleeding risk. I think this is where the advantages of an anticoagulant with a lower bleeding risk are most needed.”

Dr. Alexander points out that to date anticoagulants have shown more efficacy in venous clotting, which appears to be more dependent on coagulation factors and less dependent on platelets. “Atrial fibrillation is a mix between venous and arterial clotting, but it has more similarities to venous, so I think AFib is a place where new anticoagulants such as the factor XI inhibitors are more likely to have success,” he suggests.

“So far, anticoagulants have had a less clear long-term role in the poststroke and post-ACS populations, so these indications may be a more difficult goal,” he added.

The phase 3 studies are just starting and will take a few years before results are known.
 

Differences between the agents

The three factor XI inhibitors also have some differences. Dr. Ruff points out that most important will be the safety and efficacy of the drugs in phase 3 trials.

“Early data suggest that the various agents being developed may not have equal inhibition of factor XI. The monoclonal antibody abelacimab may produce a higher degree of inhibition than the small molecules. But we don’t know if that matters or not – whether we need to achieve a certain threshold to prevent stroke. The efficacy and safety data from the phase 3 trials are what will primarily guide use.”

There are also differences in formulations and dosage. Abelacimab is administered by subcutaneous injection once a month and has a long duration of activity, whereas the small molecules are taken orally and their duration of action is much shorter.

Dr. Ruff notes: “If these drugs cause bleeding, having a long-acting drug like abelacimab could be a disadvantage because we wouldn’t be able to stop it. But if they are very safe with regard to bleeding, then having the drug hang around for a long time is not necessarily a disadvantage, and it may improve compliance. These older patients often miss doses, and with a shorter-acting drug, that will mean they will be unprotected from stroke risk for a period of time, so there is a trade-off here.”

Dr. Ruff says that the AZALEA phase 2 study will provide some data on patients being managed around procedures. “The hope is that these drugs are so safe that they will not have to be stopped for procedures. And then the compliance issue of a once-a-month dosing would be an advantage.”

Dr. Patel says he believes there is a place for different formations. “Some patients may prefer a once-monthly injection; others will prefer a daily tablet. It may come down to patient preference, but a lot will depend on the study results with the different agents,” he commented.
 

What effect could these drugs have?

If these drugs do show efficacy in these phase 3 trials, what difference will they make to clinical practice? The potential appears to be very large.

“If these drugs are as effective at preventing strokes as DOACs, they will be a huge breakthrough, and there is good reason to think they would replace the DOACs,” Dr. Alexander says. “It would be a really big deal to have an anticoagulant that causes almost no bleeding and could prevent clots as well as the DOACs. This would enable a lot more patients to receive protection against stroke.”

Dr. Alexander believes the surgery studies are hopeful. “They show that the factor XI inhibitors are doing something to prevent blood clots. The big question is whether they are as effective as what we already have for the prevention of stroke and if not, what is the trade-off with bleeding?”

He points out that, even if the factor XI inhibitors are not as effective as DOACs but are found to be much safer, they might still have a potential clinical role, especially for those patients who currently do not take an anticoagulant because of concerns regarding bleeding.

But Dr. Patel points out that there is always the issue of costs with new drugs. “New drugs are always expensive. The DOACS are just about to become generic, and there will inevitably be concerns about access to an expensive new therapy.”

Dr. Alexander adds: “Yes, costs could be an issue, but a safer drug will definitely help to get more patients treated and in preventing more strokes, which would be a great thing.”

Dr. Patel has received grants from and acts as an adviser to Bayer (asundexian) and Janssen (milvexian). Dr. Alexander receives research funding from Bayer. Dr. Ruff receives research funding from Anthos for abelacimab trials, is on an AFib executive committee for BMS/Janssen, and has been on an advisory board for Bayer.

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

The quest to find an anticoagulant that can prevent strokes, cardiovascular events, and venous thrombosis without significantly increasing risk of bleeding is something of a holy grail in cardiovascular medicine. Could the latest focus of interest in this field – the factor XI inhibitors – be the long–sought-after answer?

Topline results from the largest study so far of a factor XI inhibitor – released on Sep. 18 – are indeed very encouraging. The phase 2 AZALEA-TIMI 71 study was stopped early because of an “overwhelming” reduction in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding shown with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos), compared with apixaban for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Very few other data from this study have yet been released. Full results are due to be presented at the scientific sessions of the American Heart Association in November. Researchers in the field are optimistic that this new class of drugs may allow millions more patients who are at risk of thrombotic events but are concerned about bleeding risk to be treated, with a consequent reduction in strokes and possibly cardiovascular events as well.
 

Why factor XI?

The hope that factor XI inhibitors will prevent pathologic thrombosis with a lower bleeding risk, compared with other anticoagulants, comes down to the role of factor XI in the coagulation cascade.

In natural physiology, there are two ongoing processes: hemostasis – a set of actions that cause bleeding to stop after an injury – and thrombosis – a pathologic clotting process in which thrombus is formed and causes a stroke, MI, or deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

In patients prone to pathologic clotting, such as those with AFib, the balance of these two processes has shifted toward thrombosis, so anticoagulants are used to reduce the thrombotic risks. For many years, the only available oral anticoagulant was warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist that was very effective at preventing strokes but that comes with a high risk for bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and fatal bleeding.

The introduction of the direct-acting anticoagulants (DOACs) a few years ago was a step forward in that these drugs have been shown to be as effective as warfarin but are associated with a lower risk of bleeding, particularly of ICH and fatal bleeding. But they still cause bleeding, and concerns over that risk of bleeding prevent millions of patients from taking these drugs and receiving protection against stroke.

John Alexander, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., a researcher active in this area, notes that “while the DOACs cause less bleeding than warfarin, they still cause two or three times more bleeding than placebo, and there is a huge, unmet need for safer anticoagulants that don’t cause as much bleeding. We are hopeful that factor XI inhibitors might be those anticoagulants.”

The lead investigator the AZALEA study, Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained why it is thought that factor XI inhibitors may be different.

“There’s a lot of different clotting factors, and most of them converge in a central pathway. The problem, therefore, with anticoagulants used to date that block one of these factors is that they prevent clotting but also cause bleeding.

“It has been discovered that factor XI has a really unique position in the cascade of how our body forms clots in that it seems to be important in clot formation, but it doesn’t seem to play a major role in our ability to heal and repair blood vessels.”

Another doctor involved in the field, Manesh Patel, MD, chief of cardiology at Duke University Medical Center, added, “We think that factor XI inhibitors may prevent the pathologic formation of thrombosis while allowing formation of thrombus for natural hemostasis to prevent bleeding. That is why they are so promising.”

This correlates with epidemiologic data suggesting that patients with a genetic factor XI deficiency have low rates of stroke and MI but don’t appear to bleed spontaneously, Dr. Patel notes.
 

Candidates in development

The pharmaceutical industry is on the case with several factor XI inhibitors now in clinical development. At present, three main candidates lead the field. These are abelacimab (Anthos), a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month; and two small molecules, milvexian (BMS/Janssen) and asundexian (Bayer), which are both given orally.

Phase 3 trials of these three factor XI inhibitors have recently started for a variety of thrombotic indications, including the prevention of stroke in patients with AFib, prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with ischemic stroke, and prevention of future cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Dr. Alexander, who has been involved in clinical trials of both milvexian and asundexian, commented: “We have pretty good data from a number of phase 2 trials now that these factor XI inhibitors at the doses used in these studies cause a lot less bleeding than therapeutic doses of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins.”

He pointed out that, in addition to the AZALEA trial with abelacimab, the phase 2 PACIFIC program of studies has shown less bleeding with asundexian than with apixaban in patients with AFib and a similar amount of bleeding as placebo in ACS/stroke patients on top of antiplatelet therapy. Milvexian has also shown similar results in the AXIOMATIC program of studies.

Dr. Ruff noted that the biggest need for new anticoagulants in general is in the AFib population. “Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common medical conditions in the world. Approximately one in every three people will develop AFib in their lifetime, and it is associated with more than a fivefold increased risk of stroke. But up to half of patients with AFib currently do not take anticoagulants because of concerns about bleeding risks, so these patients are being left unprotected from stroke risk.”

Dr. Ruff pointed out that the AZALEA study was the largest and longest study of a factor XI inhibitor to date; 1,287 patients were followed for a median of 2 years.

“This was the first trial of long-term administration of factor XI inhibitor against a full-dose DOAC, and it was stopped because of an overwhelming reduction in a major bleeding with abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban,” he noted. “That is very encouraging. It looks like our quest to develop a safe anticoagulant with much lower rates of bleeding, compared with standard of care, seems to have been borne out. I think the field is very excited that we may finally have something that protects patients from thrombosis whilst being much safer than current agents.”

While all this sounds very promising, for these drugs to be successful, in addition to reducing bleeding risk, they will also have to be effective at preventing strokes and other thrombotic events.

“While we are pretty sure that factor XI inhibitors will cause less bleeding than current anticoagulants, what is unknown still is how effective they will be at preventing pathologic blood clots,” Dr. Alexander points out.

“We have some data from studies of these drugs in DVT prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery which suggest that they are effective in preventing blood clots in that scenario. But we don’t know yet about whether they can prevent pathologic blood clots that occur in AFib patients or in poststroke or post-ACS patients. Phase 3 studies are now underway with these three leading drug candidates which will answer some of these questions.”

Dr. Patel agrees that the efficacy data in the phase 3 trials will be key to the success of these drugs. “That is a very important part of the puzzle that is still missing,” he says.

Dr. Ruff notes that the AZALEA study will provide some data on efficacy. “But we already know that in the orthopedic surgery trials there was a 70%-80% reduction in VTE with abelacimab (at the 150-mg dose going forward) vs. prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin. And we know from the DOACs that the doses preventing clots on the venous side also translated into preventing strokes on the [AFib] side. So that is very encouraging,” Dr. Ruff adds.
 

Potential indications

The three leading factor XI inhibitors have slightly different phase 3 development programs.

Dr. Ruff notes that not every agent is being investigated in phase 3 trials for all the potential indications, but all three are going for the AFib indication. “This is by far the biggest population, the biggest market, and the biggest clinical need for these agents,” he says.

While the milvexian and asundexian trials are using an active comparator – pitting the factor XI inhibitors against apixaban in AFib patients – the Anthos LILAC trial is taking a slightly different approach and is comparing abelacimab with placebo in patients with AFib who are not currently taking an anticoagulant because of concerns about bleeding risk.

Janssen/BMS is conducting two other phase 3 trials of milvexian in their LIBREXIA phase 3 program. Those trials involve poststroke patients and ACS patients. Bayer is also involved in a poststroke trial of asundexian as part of its OCEANIC phase 3 program.

Dr. Ruff points out that anticoagulants currently do not have a large role in the poststroke or post-ACS population. “But the hope is that, if factor XI inhibitors are so safe, then there will be more enthusiasm about using an anticoagulant on top of antiplatelet therapy, which is the cornerstone of therapy in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

In addition to its phase 3 LILAC study in patients with AFib, Anthos is conducting two major phase 3 trials with abelacimab for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Ruff notes that the indication of postsurgery or general prevention of VTE is not being pursued at present.

“The orthopedic surgery studies were done mainly for dose finding and proof of principle reasons,” he explains. “In orthopedic surgery the window for anticoagulation is quite short – a few weeks or months. And for the prevention of recurrent VTE in general in the community, those people are at a relatively low risk of bleeding, so there may not be much advantage of the factor XI inhibitors, whereas AFib patients and those with stroke or ACS are usually older and have a much higher bleeding risk. I think this is where the advantages of an anticoagulant with a lower bleeding risk are most needed.”

Dr. Alexander points out that to date anticoagulants have shown more efficacy in venous clotting, which appears to be more dependent on coagulation factors and less dependent on platelets. “Atrial fibrillation is a mix between venous and arterial clotting, but it has more similarities to venous, so I think AFib is a place where new anticoagulants such as the factor XI inhibitors are more likely to have success,” he suggests.

“So far, anticoagulants have had a less clear long-term role in the poststroke and post-ACS populations, so these indications may be a more difficult goal,” he added.

The phase 3 studies are just starting and will take a few years before results are known.
 

Differences between the agents

The three factor XI inhibitors also have some differences. Dr. Ruff points out that most important will be the safety and efficacy of the drugs in phase 3 trials.

“Early data suggest that the various agents being developed may not have equal inhibition of factor XI. The monoclonal antibody abelacimab may produce a higher degree of inhibition than the small molecules. But we don’t know if that matters or not – whether we need to achieve a certain threshold to prevent stroke. The efficacy and safety data from the phase 3 trials are what will primarily guide use.”

There are also differences in formulations and dosage. Abelacimab is administered by subcutaneous injection once a month and has a long duration of activity, whereas the small molecules are taken orally and their duration of action is much shorter.

Dr. Ruff notes: “If these drugs cause bleeding, having a long-acting drug like abelacimab could be a disadvantage because we wouldn’t be able to stop it. But if they are very safe with regard to bleeding, then having the drug hang around for a long time is not necessarily a disadvantage, and it may improve compliance. These older patients often miss doses, and with a shorter-acting drug, that will mean they will be unprotected from stroke risk for a period of time, so there is a trade-off here.”

Dr. Ruff says that the AZALEA phase 2 study will provide some data on patients being managed around procedures. “The hope is that these drugs are so safe that they will not have to be stopped for procedures. And then the compliance issue of a once-a-month dosing would be an advantage.”

Dr. Patel says he believes there is a place for different formations. “Some patients may prefer a once-monthly injection; others will prefer a daily tablet. It may come down to patient preference, but a lot will depend on the study results with the different agents,” he commented.
 

What effect could these drugs have?

If these drugs do show efficacy in these phase 3 trials, what difference will they make to clinical practice? The potential appears to be very large.

“If these drugs are as effective at preventing strokes as DOACs, they will be a huge breakthrough, and there is good reason to think they would replace the DOACs,” Dr. Alexander says. “It would be a really big deal to have an anticoagulant that causes almost no bleeding and could prevent clots as well as the DOACs. This would enable a lot more patients to receive protection against stroke.”

Dr. Alexander believes the surgery studies are hopeful. “They show that the factor XI inhibitors are doing something to prevent blood clots. The big question is whether they are as effective as what we already have for the prevention of stroke and if not, what is the trade-off with bleeding?”

He points out that, even if the factor XI inhibitors are not as effective as DOACs but are found to be much safer, they might still have a potential clinical role, especially for those patients who currently do not take an anticoagulant because of concerns regarding bleeding.

But Dr. Patel points out that there is always the issue of costs with new drugs. “New drugs are always expensive. The DOACS are just about to become generic, and there will inevitably be concerns about access to an expensive new therapy.”

Dr. Alexander adds: “Yes, costs could be an issue, but a safer drug will definitely help to get more patients treated and in preventing more strokes, which would be a great thing.”

Dr. Patel has received grants from and acts as an adviser to Bayer (asundexian) and Janssen (milvexian). Dr. Alexander receives research funding from Bayer. Dr. Ruff receives research funding from Anthos for abelacimab trials, is on an AFib executive committee for BMS/Janssen, and has been on an advisory board for Bayer.

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

The quest to find an anticoagulant that can prevent strokes, cardiovascular events, and venous thrombosis without significantly increasing risk of bleeding is something of a holy grail in cardiovascular medicine. Could the latest focus of interest in this field – the factor XI inhibitors – be the long–sought-after answer?

Topline results from the largest study so far of a factor XI inhibitor – released on Sep. 18 – are indeed very encouraging. The phase 2 AZALEA-TIMI 71 study was stopped early because of an “overwhelming” reduction in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding shown with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos), compared with apixaban for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Very few other data from this study have yet been released. Full results are due to be presented at the scientific sessions of the American Heart Association in November. Researchers in the field are optimistic that this new class of drugs may allow millions more patients who are at risk of thrombotic events but are concerned about bleeding risk to be treated, with a consequent reduction in strokes and possibly cardiovascular events as well.
 

Why factor XI?

The hope that factor XI inhibitors will prevent pathologic thrombosis with a lower bleeding risk, compared with other anticoagulants, comes down to the role of factor XI in the coagulation cascade.

In natural physiology, there are two ongoing processes: hemostasis – a set of actions that cause bleeding to stop after an injury – and thrombosis – a pathologic clotting process in which thrombus is formed and causes a stroke, MI, or deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

In patients prone to pathologic clotting, such as those with AFib, the balance of these two processes has shifted toward thrombosis, so anticoagulants are used to reduce the thrombotic risks. For many years, the only available oral anticoagulant was warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist that was very effective at preventing strokes but that comes with a high risk for bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and fatal bleeding.

The introduction of the direct-acting anticoagulants (DOACs) a few years ago was a step forward in that these drugs have been shown to be as effective as warfarin but are associated with a lower risk of bleeding, particularly of ICH and fatal bleeding. But they still cause bleeding, and concerns over that risk of bleeding prevent millions of patients from taking these drugs and receiving protection against stroke.

John Alexander, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., a researcher active in this area, notes that “while the DOACs cause less bleeding than warfarin, they still cause two or three times more bleeding than placebo, and there is a huge, unmet need for safer anticoagulants that don’t cause as much bleeding. We are hopeful that factor XI inhibitors might be those anticoagulants.”

The lead investigator the AZALEA study, Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained why it is thought that factor XI inhibitors may be different.

“There’s a lot of different clotting factors, and most of them converge in a central pathway. The problem, therefore, with anticoagulants used to date that block one of these factors is that they prevent clotting but also cause bleeding.

“It has been discovered that factor XI has a really unique position in the cascade of how our body forms clots in that it seems to be important in clot formation, but it doesn’t seem to play a major role in our ability to heal and repair blood vessels.”

Another doctor involved in the field, Manesh Patel, MD, chief of cardiology at Duke University Medical Center, added, “We think that factor XI inhibitors may prevent the pathologic formation of thrombosis while allowing formation of thrombus for natural hemostasis to prevent bleeding. That is why they are so promising.”

This correlates with epidemiologic data suggesting that patients with a genetic factor XI deficiency have low rates of stroke and MI but don’t appear to bleed spontaneously, Dr. Patel notes.
 

Candidates in development

The pharmaceutical industry is on the case with several factor XI inhibitors now in clinical development. At present, three main candidates lead the field. These are abelacimab (Anthos), a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month; and two small molecules, milvexian (BMS/Janssen) and asundexian (Bayer), which are both given orally.

Phase 3 trials of these three factor XI inhibitors have recently started for a variety of thrombotic indications, including the prevention of stroke in patients with AFib, prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with ischemic stroke, and prevention of future cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Dr. Alexander, who has been involved in clinical trials of both milvexian and asundexian, commented: “We have pretty good data from a number of phase 2 trials now that these factor XI inhibitors at the doses used in these studies cause a lot less bleeding than therapeutic doses of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins.”

He pointed out that, in addition to the AZALEA trial with abelacimab, the phase 2 PACIFIC program of studies has shown less bleeding with asundexian than with apixaban in patients with AFib and a similar amount of bleeding as placebo in ACS/stroke patients on top of antiplatelet therapy. Milvexian has also shown similar results in the AXIOMATIC program of studies.

Dr. Ruff noted that the biggest need for new anticoagulants in general is in the AFib population. “Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common medical conditions in the world. Approximately one in every three people will develop AFib in their lifetime, and it is associated with more than a fivefold increased risk of stroke. But up to half of patients with AFib currently do not take anticoagulants because of concerns about bleeding risks, so these patients are being left unprotected from stroke risk.”

Dr. Ruff pointed out that the AZALEA study was the largest and longest study of a factor XI inhibitor to date; 1,287 patients were followed for a median of 2 years.

“This was the first trial of long-term administration of factor XI inhibitor against a full-dose DOAC, and it was stopped because of an overwhelming reduction in a major bleeding with abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban,” he noted. “That is very encouraging. It looks like our quest to develop a safe anticoagulant with much lower rates of bleeding, compared with standard of care, seems to have been borne out. I think the field is very excited that we may finally have something that protects patients from thrombosis whilst being much safer than current agents.”

While all this sounds very promising, for these drugs to be successful, in addition to reducing bleeding risk, they will also have to be effective at preventing strokes and other thrombotic events.

“While we are pretty sure that factor XI inhibitors will cause less bleeding than current anticoagulants, what is unknown still is how effective they will be at preventing pathologic blood clots,” Dr. Alexander points out.

“We have some data from studies of these drugs in DVT prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery which suggest that they are effective in preventing blood clots in that scenario. But we don’t know yet about whether they can prevent pathologic blood clots that occur in AFib patients or in poststroke or post-ACS patients. Phase 3 studies are now underway with these three leading drug candidates which will answer some of these questions.”

Dr. Patel agrees that the efficacy data in the phase 3 trials will be key to the success of these drugs. “That is a very important part of the puzzle that is still missing,” he says.

Dr. Ruff notes that the AZALEA study will provide some data on efficacy. “But we already know that in the orthopedic surgery trials there was a 70%-80% reduction in VTE with abelacimab (at the 150-mg dose going forward) vs. prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin. And we know from the DOACs that the doses preventing clots on the venous side also translated into preventing strokes on the [AFib] side. So that is very encouraging,” Dr. Ruff adds.
 

Potential indications

The three leading factor XI inhibitors have slightly different phase 3 development programs.

Dr. Ruff notes that not every agent is being investigated in phase 3 trials for all the potential indications, but all three are going for the AFib indication. “This is by far the biggest population, the biggest market, and the biggest clinical need for these agents,” he says.

While the milvexian and asundexian trials are using an active comparator – pitting the factor XI inhibitors against apixaban in AFib patients – the Anthos LILAC trial is taking a slightly different approach and is comparing abelacimab with placebo in patients with AFib who are not currently taking an anticoagulant because of concerns about bleeding risk.

Janssen/BMS is conducting two other phase 3 trials of milvexian in their LIBREXIA phase 3 program. Those trials involve poststroke patients and ACS patients. Bayer is also involved in a poststroke trial of asundexian as part of its OCEANIC phase 3 program.

Dr. Ruff points out that anticoagulants currently do not have a large role in the poststroke or post-ACS population. “But the hope is that, if factor XI inhibitors are so safe, then there will be more enthusiasm about using an anticoagulant on top of antiplatelet therapy, which is the cornerstone of therapy in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

In addition to its phase 3 LILAC study in patients with AFib, Anthos is conducting two major phase 3 trials with abelacimab for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Ruff notes that the indication of postsurgery or general prevention of VTE is not being pursued at present.

“The orthopedic surgery studies were done mainly for dose finding and proof of principle reasons,” he explains. “In orthopedic surgery the window for anticoagulation is quite short – a few weeks or months. And for the prevention of recurrent VTE in general in the community, those people are at a relatively low risk of bleeding, so there may not be much advantage of the factor XI inhibitors, whereas AFib patients and those with stroke or ACS are usually older and have a much higher bleeding risk. I think this is where the advantages of an anticoagulant with a lower bleeding risk are most needed.”

Dr. Alexander points out that to date anticoagulants have shown more efficacy in venous clotting, which appears to be more dependent on coagulation factors and less dependent on platelets. “Atrial fibrillation is a mix between venous and arterial clotting, but it has more similarities to venous, so I think AFib is a place where new anticoagulants such as the factor XI inhibitors are more likely to have success,” he suggests.

“So far, anticoagulants have had a less clear long-term role in the poststroke and post-ACS populations, so these indications may be a more difficult goal,” he added.

The phase 3 studies are just starting and will take a few years before results are known.
 

Differences between the agents

The three factor XI inhibitors also have some differences. Dr. Ruff points out that most important will be the safety and efficacy of the drugs in phase 3 trials.

“Early data suggest that the various agents being developed may not have equal inhibition of factor XI. The monoclonal antibody abelacimab may produce a higher degree of inhibition than the small molecules. But we don’t know if that matters or not – whether we need to achieve a certain threshold to prevent stroke. The efficacy and safety data from the phase 3 trials are what will primarily guide use.”

There are also differences in formulations and dosage. Abelacimab is administered by subcutaneous injection once a month and has a long duration of activity, whereas the small molecules are taken orally and their duration of action is much shorter.

Dr. Ruff notes: “If these drugs cause bleeding, having a long-acting drug like abelacimab could be a disadvantage because we wouldn’t be able to stop it. But if they are very safe with regard to bleeding, then having the drug hang around for a long time is not necessarily a disadvantage, and it may improve compliance. These older patients often miss doses, and with a shorter-acting drug, that will mean they will be unprotected from stroke risk for a period of time, so there is a trade-off here.”

Dr. Ruff says that the AZALEA phase 2 study will provide some data on patients being managed around procedures. “The hope is that these drugs are so safe that they will not have to be stopped for procedures. And then the compliance issue of a once-a-month dosing would be an advantage.”

Dr. Patel says he believes there is a place for different formations. “Some patients may prefer a once-monthly injection; others will prefer a daily tablet. It may come down to patient preference, but a lot will depend on the study results with the different agents,” he commented.
 

What effect could these drugs have?

If these drugs do show efficacy in these phase 3 trials, what difference will they make to clinical practice? The potential appears to be very large.

“If these drugs are as effective at preventing strokes as DOACs, they will be a huge breakthrough, and there is good reason to think they would replace the DOACs,” Dr. Alexander says. “It would be a really big deal to have an anticoagulant that causes almost no bleeding and could prevent clots as well as the DOACs. This would enable a lot more patients to receive protection against stroke.”

Dr. Alexander believes the surgery studies are hopeful. “They show that the factor XI inhibitors are doing something to prevent blood clots. The big question is whether they are as effective as what we already have for the prevention of stroke and if not, what is the trade-off with bleeding?”

He points out that, even if the factor XI inhibitors are not as effective as DOACs but are found to be much safer, they might still have a potential clinical role, especially for those patients who currently do not take an anticoagulant because of concerns regarding bleeding.

But Dr. Patel points out that there is always the issue of costs with new drugs. “New drugs are always expensive. The DOACS are just about to become generic, and there will inevitably be concerns about access to an expensive new therapy.”

Dr. Alexander adds: “Yes, costs could be an issue, but a safer drug will definitely help to get more patients treated and in preventing more strokes, which would be a great thing.”

Dr. Patel has received grants from and acts as an adviser to Bayer (asundexian) and Janssen (milvexian). Dr. Alexander receives research funding from Bayer. Dr. Ruff receives research funding from Anthos for abelacimab trials, is on an AFib executive committee for BMS/Janssen, and has been on an advisory board for Bayer.

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

A revolutionary treatment for cancers may also be able to treat and reset the immune system to provide long-term remission or possibly even cure certain autoimmune diseases.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has offered a novel approach to treating hematologic cancers since 2017, but there are early signs that these cellular immunotherapies could be repurposed for B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

In September of last year, researchers in Germany reported that five patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treated with CAR T-cell therapy all achieved drug-free remission. At the time of publication, no patients had relapsed for up to 17 months after treatment. The authors described seroconversion of antinuclear antibodies in two patients with the longest follow-up, “indicating that abrogation of autoimmune B-cell clones may lead to a more widespread correction of autoimmunity,” the researchers write.

In another case study published in June, researchers used CD-19 targeted CAR-T cells to treat a 41-year-old man with refractory antisynthetase syndrome with progressive myositis and interstitial lung disease. Six months after treatment, there were no signs of myositis on MRI and a chest CT scan showed full regression of alveolitis.

John Hopkins Medicine

Since then, two biotechnology companies – Cabaletta Bio in Philadelphia and Kyverna Therapeutics in Emeryville, Calif. – have already been granted fast-track designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CAR T-cell therapy for SLE and lupus nephritis. Bristol-Myers Squibb is also conducting a phase 1 trial in patients with severe, refractory SLE. Several biotechnology companies and hospitals in China are also conducting clinical trials for SLE. But this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding cellular therapies for autoimmune disease, said Max Konig, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It’s an incredibly exciting time. It’s unprecedented in the history of autoimmunity,” he noted.
 

A ‘reboot’ for the immune system

B-cell targeted therapies have been around since the early 2000s with drugs like rituximab, a monoclonal antibody medication that targets CD20, an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells. The CAR T cells currently available target another surface antigen, CD19, and are a much more potent therapy. Both are effective at depleting B cells in blood, but these engineered CD19-targeted T cells can reach B cells sitting in tissues in a way that antibody therapies cannot, Dr. Konig explained.

“If you have a patient with myositis, for example, where autoreactive B cells are sitting in the inflamed muscle, or a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, where you have disease-relevant B cells in hard-to-reach tissues like the synovium, those cells are much harder to deplete with an antibody, compared to a T cell that evolved to surveil and effectively kill in all tissues,” he explained.

In this process, T cells are collected from patients via leukapheresis and then re-engineered to express chimeric antigen receptors. A few days before these modified T cells are infused back into the patient, the patients are given a low-dose chemotherapy (lymphodepletion) regimen to help increase the effectiveness of the therapy. The one-time infusion is generally given on an inpatient basis, and patients are then monitored in hospital for side effects.

Once B cells are depleted, disease symptoms improve. But in the case studies published to date, once B cells re-emerge, they are naïve and no longer producing autoreactive B cells.
 

“Maybe it’s like a tabula rasa: You wipe [the B cells] out and start with a clean slate. Then, the immune system reboots, and now it’s working, whereas before it was messed up,” said Carl June, MD, who directs the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. June and his research team led the development of CAR T-cell therapies for blood cancers.

The findings suggest that autoantibodies “might not be hardwired into the immune system,” he said.

But Dr. Konig stressed that we are still in the early days of clinical trials, and more research is necessary to understand the safety and efficacy of these therapies.

“There’s an incredible buzz around CAR T cells at the moment in rheumatology, which is great because I think that’s where the future is,” he said. “But we still need to learn how to appropriately apply these therapies in randomized, controlled trials.”

So far, the evidence behind CD19 CAR T-cell therapies in autoimmune disease is from case studies and phase 1 trials in a very small number of selected patients. (The upcoming Cabaletta and Kyverna trials in lupus will also be small, consisting of 12 patients each.)
 

Risks of intensive therapy

But while these therapies show promise, the process is very intensive. The lymphodepleting regimen increases the risk for infection and patients are commonly hospitalized for a week or more following infusion for toxicity monitoring. Serious adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur days to weeks after CAR T-cell infusion. In the five-patient case series reported in 2022, patients were hospitalized for 10 days following treatment.

The patient with antisynthetase syndrome, as well as three of five patients in the SLE case series study experienced mild CRS following infusion. Patients are also at a high risk for infection, as the engineered T cells target all B cells, not just the autoreactive immune cells.

The inability to differentiate between disease-causing and protective immune cells is an issue for all currently available drugs treating autoimmune disease, Dr. Konig said. But scientists are already working on how to make these potent cellular therapies safer and more precise.
 

Alternatives to standard CAR T-cell therapies

Engineering T cells with RNA is a new approach to limit the side effects and toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy, said Chris Jewell, PhD, the chief scientific officer at Cartesian Therapeutics, a biotechnology company based in Gaithersburg, Md. The company’s RNA CAR T-cell (rCAR-T) therapy – called DESCARTES-08 – is in phase 2 clinical trials for treatment of myasthenia gravis. Once these rCAR-T cells are infused in patients, as they divide, the RNAnaturally decays, he explained, meaning that after a certain point, the CAR is no longer expressed.

Cartesian Therapeutics

DESCARTES-08 targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is primarily expressed on plasma cells, rather than all B cells, Dr. Jewell said.

“Targeting BCMA, we actually have a more selective profile,” he explained. “We are targeting the cells primarily responsible for the pathogenicity; many plasma cells – such as long-lived plasma cells – also take a long time to repopulate.”

This therapy also does not require lymphodepletion prior to infusion and can be done in an outpatient setting. The therapy is given in multiple infusions, once per week.

In the most recent clinical trial, patients with myasthenia gravis received six infusions over 6 weeks and experienced notable decreases in myasthenia gravis severity scale at up to 9 months of follow-up.

Abata Therapeutics

While standard CAR T-cell therapies under clinical investigational up to now all use effector T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) can also be engineered to target autoimmune disease. Abata Therapeutics, based in Boston, is using this approach for therapies for progressive multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. These engineered Tregs express a T-cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes tissue-specific antigens and suppress inflammation at the site of the disease. “Treg-based cell therapies are really harnessing the natural power of regulatory cells to reset immune tolerance and recalibrate the immune system,” said their chief medical officer, Leonard Dragone, MD, PhD.

These therapies are derived from terminally differentiated cells that have limited capacity to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, Dr. Dragone explained. “CRS is difficult to envision from engineered Treg products and hasn’t been observed in any clinical experience with polyclonal Tregs,” he said.

This approach also does not require lymphodepletion prior to treatment. The company’s Treg cellular therapy for progressive MS is currently in investigational new drug-enabling studies, and they aim to dose their first patients in 2024.
 

Precision immunotherapy

For B-cell driven autoimmune diseases where the autoantibody is known, researchers have begun to re-engineer T cells to recognize only autoreactive B cells. While CD19 CAR T cells act more like a sledgehammer, these precision cellular immunotherapies are “like a razor’s strike,” Dr. June said.

University of Pennsylvania

“The chimeric autoantibody receptor (CAAR) approach targets autoantibodies that are expressed only on the surface of autoimmune B cells and are not expressed on normal B cells, which ideally should lead to precision targeting of just the cells that cause autoimmune disease,” explained Aimee Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the Penn Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her research team used this approach to develop a treatment for mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering disease of mucous membranes driven by autoantibodies against desmoglein 3.

“The current standard of care for pemphigus is to treat with steroids and rituximab, an infusion therapy that results in global, but temporary, B-cell depletion,” she said. “By expressing desmoglein 3 (DSG3) on the surface of the CAAR T-cell therapy, we target just the anti-DSG3 B cells that cause disease in mucosal pemphigus vulgaris and spare the healthy B cells.”

The therapy – called DSG3-CAART – is being developed by Cabaletta Bio and is now in phase 1 clinical trials. The approach is also being investigated to treat certain types of myasthenia gravis and membranous nephropathy.

Dr. Konig’s lab at Johns Hopkins developed and is now exploring a new precision cellular immunotherapy approach, chimeric autoantigen-T cell receptor (CATCR) T-cell therapy, to treat antiphospholipid syndrome, which is in preclinical stages. In this approach, Dr. Konig and his team are “re-engineering the natural T-cell receptor to selectively kill disease-causing B cells that drive antiphospholipid syndrome,” he explained.

He anticipates the CD19 CAR T-cell therapies currently in clinical trials will help to pave the way for this new generation of precision cellular therapies. The ultimate goal of these therapies, he said, is to uncouple therapeutic potency from infection risk.

“That’s really the holy grail in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. It’s tantalizingly close, but we’re not there yet.”

Dr. June is an inventor on patents and/or patent applications licensed to Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research and receives license revenue from such licenses. Dr. June is a scientific founder of Tmunity Therapeutics and Capstan Therapeutics and is a member of the scientific advisory boards of AC Immune SA, Alaunos, BlueSphere Bio, Cabaletta, Carisma, Cartography Biosciences, Cellares, Celldex, Decheng Capital, Poseida, Verismo, and WIRB-Copernicus Group. Dr. Konig is a consultant for argenx and Revel and is listed as inventor for patent applications filed by John Hopkins University. Dr. Payne holds equity, grants, payments, and patent licensing from Cabaletta Bio and consults for Janssen.

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

A revolutionary treatment for cancers may also be able to treat and reset the immune system to provide long-term remission or possibly even cure certain autoimmune diseases.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has offered a novel approach to treating hematologic cancers since 2017, but there are early signs that these cellular immunotherapies could be repurposed for B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

In September of last year, researchers in Germany reported that five patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treated with CAR T-cell therapy all achieved drug-free remission. At the time of publication, no patients had relapsed for up to 17 months after treatment. The authors described seroconversion of antinuclear antibodies in two patients with the longest follow-up, “indicating that abrogation of autoimmune B-cell clones may lead to a more widespread correction of autoimmunity,” the researchers write.

In another case study published in June, researchers used CD-19 targeted CAR-T cells to treat a 41-year-old man with refractory antisynthetase syndrome with progressive myositis and interstitial lung disease. Six months after treatment, there were no signs of myositis on MRI and a chest CT scan showed full regression of alveolitis.

John Hopkins Medicine

Since then, two biotechnology companies – Cabaletta Bio in Philadelphia and Kyverna Therapeutics in Emeryville, Calif. – have already been granted fast-track designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CAR T-cell therapy for SLE and lupus nephritis. Bristol-Myers Squibb is also conducting a phase 1 trial in patients with severe, refractory SLE. Several biotechnology companies and hospitals in China are also conducting clinical trials for SLE. But this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding cellular therapies for autoimmune disease, said Max Konig, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It’s an incredibly exciting time. It’s unprecedented in the history of autoimmunity,” he noted.
 

A ‘reboot’ for the immune system

B-cell targeted therapies have been around since the early 2000s with drugs like rituximab, a monoclonal antibody medication that targets CD20, an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells. The CAR T cells currently available target another surface antigen, CD19, and are a much more potent therapy. Both are effective at depleting B cells in blood, but these engineered CD19-targeted T cells can reach B cells sitting in tissues in a way that antibody therapies cannot, Dr. Konig explained.

“If you have a patient with myositis, for example, where autoreactive B cells are sitting in the inflamed muscle, or a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, where you have disease-relevant B cells in hard-to-reach tissues like the synovium, those cells are much harder to deplete with an antibody, compared to a T cell that evolved to surveil and effectively kill in all tissues,” he explained.

In this process, T cells are collected from patients via leukapheresis and then re-engineered to express chimeric antigen receptors. A few days before these modified T cells are infused back into the patient, the patients are given a low-dose chemotherapy (lymphodepletion) regimen to help increase the effectiveness of the therapy. The one-time infusion is generally given on an inpatient basis, and patients are then monitored in hospital for side effects.

Once B cells are depleted, disease symptoms improve. But in the case studies published to date, once B cells re-emerge, they are naïve and no longer producing autoreactive B cells.
 

“Maybe it’s like a tabula rasa: You wipe [the B cells] out and start with a clean slate. Then, the immune system reboots, and now it’s working, whereas before it was messed up,” said Carl June, MD, who directs the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. June and his research team led the development of CAR T-cell therapies for blood cancers.

The findings suggest that autoantibodies “might not be hardwired into the immune system,” he said.

But Dr. Konig stressed that we are still in the early days of clinical trials, and more research is necessary to understand the safety and efficacy of these therapies.

“There’s an incredible buzz around CAR T cells at the moment in rheumatology, which is great because I think that’s where the future is,” he said. “But we still need to learn how to appropriately apply these therapies in randomized, controlled trials.”

So far, the evidence behind CD19 CAR T-cell therapies in autoimmune disease is from case studies and phase 1 trials in a very small number of selected patients. (The upcoming Cabaletta and Kyverna trials in lupus will also be small, consisting of 12 patients each.)
 

Risks of intensive therapy

But while these therapies show promise, the process is very intensive. The lymphodepleting regimen increases the risk for infection and patients are commonly hospitalized for a week or more following infusion for toxicity monitoring. Serious adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur days to weeks after CAR T-cell infusion. In the five-patient case series reported in 2022, patients were hospitalized for 10 days following treatment.

The patient with antisynthetase syndrome, as well as three of five patients in the SLE case series study experienced mild CRS following infusion. Patients are also at a high risk for infection, as the engineered T cells target all B cells, not just the autoreactive immune cells.

The inability to differentiate between disease-causing and protective immune cells is an issue for all currently available drugs treating autoimmune disease, Dr. Konig said. But scientists are already working on how to make these potent cellular therapies safer and more precise.
 

Alternatives to standard CAR T-cell therapies

Engineering T cells with RNA is a new approach to limit the side effects and toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy, said Chris Jewell, PhD, the chief scientific officer at Cartesian Therapeutics, a biotechnology company based in Gaithersburg, Md. The company’s RNA CAR T-cell (rCAR-T) therapy – called DESCARTES-08 – is in phase 2 clinical trials for treatment of myasthenia gravis. Once these rCAR-T cells are infused in patients, as they divide, the RNAnaturally decays, he explained, meaning that after a certain point, the CAR is no longer expressed.

Cartesian Therapeutics

DESCARTES-08 targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is primarily expressed on plasma cells, rather than all B cells, Dr. Jewell said.

“Targeting BCMA, we actually have a more selective profile,” he explained. “We are targeting the cells primarily responsible for the pathogenicity; many plasma cells – such as long-lived plasma cells – also take a long time to repopulate.”

This therapy also does not require lymphodepletion prior to infusion and can be done in an outpatient setting. The therapy is given in multiple infusions, once per week.

In the most recent clinical trial, patients with myasthenia gravis received six infusions over 6 weeks and experienced notable decreases in myasthenia gravis severity scale at up to 9 months of follow-up.

Abata Therapeutics

While standard CAR T-cell therapies under clinical investigational up to now all use effector T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) can also be engineered to target autoimmune disease. Abata Therapeutics, based in Boston, is using this approach for therapies for progressive multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. These engineered Tregs express a T-cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes tissue-specific antigens and suppress inflammation at the site of the disease. “Treg-based cell therapies are really harnessing the natural power of regulatory cells to reset immune tolerance and recalibrate the immune system,” said their chief medical officer, Leonard Dragone, MD, PhD.

These therapies are derived from terminally differentiated cells that have limited capacity to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, Dr. Dragone explained. “CRS is difficult to envision from engineered Treg products and hasn’t been observed in any clinical experience with polyclonal Tregs,” he said.

This approach also does not require lymphodepletion prior to treatment. The company’s Treg cellular therapy for progressive MS is currently in investigational new drug-enabling studies, and they aim to dose their first patients in 2024.
 

Precision immunotherapy

For B-cell driven autoimmune diseases where the autoantibody is known, researchers have begun to re-engineer T cells to recognize only autoreactive B cells. While CD19 CAR T cells act more like a sledgehammer, these precision cellular immunotherapies are “like a razor’s strike,” Dr. June said.

University of Pennsylvania

“The chimeric autoantibody receptor (CAAR) approach targets autoantibodies that are expressed only on the surface of autoimmune B cells and are not expressed on normal B cells, which ideally should lead to precision targeting of just the cells that cause autoimmune disease,” explained Aimee Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the Penn Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her research team used this approach to develop a treatment for mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering disease of mucous membranes driven by autoantibodies against desmoglein 3.

“The current standard of care for pemphigus is to treat with steroids and rituximab, an infusion therapy that results in global, but temporary, B-cell depletion,” she said. “By expressing desmoglein 3 (DSG3) on the surface of the CAAR T-cell therapy, we target just the anti-DSG3 B cells that cause disease in mucosal pemphigus vulgaris and spare the healthy B cells.”

The therapy – called DSG3-CAART – is being developed by Cabaletta Bio and is now in phase 1 clinical trials. The approach is also being investigated to treat certain types of myasthenia gravis and membranous nephropathy.

Dr. Konig’s lab at Johns Hopkins developed and is now exploring a new precision cellular immunotherapy approach, chimeric autoantigen-T cell receptor (CATCR) T-cell therapy, to treat antiphospholipid syndrome, which is in preclinical stages. In this approach, Dr. Konig and his team are “re-engineering the natural T-cell receptor to selectively kill disease-causing B cells that drive antiphospholipid syndrome,” he explained.

He anticipates the CD19 CAR T-cell therapies currently in clinical trials will help to pave the way for this new generation of precision cellular therapies. The ultimate goal of these therapies, he said, is to uncouple therapeutic potency from infection risk.

“That’s really the holy grail in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. It’s tantalizingly close, but we’re not there yet.”

Dr. June is an inventor on patents and/or patent applications licensed to Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research and receives license revenue from such licenses. Dr. June is a scientific founder of Tmunity Therapeutics and Capstan Therapeutics and is a member of the scientific advisory boards of AC Immune SA, Alaunos, BlueSphere Bio, Cabaletta, Carisma, Cartography Biosciences, Cellares, Celldex, Decheng Capital, Poseida, Verismo, and WIRB-Copernicus Group. Dr. Konig is a consultant for argenx and Revel and is listed as inventor for patent applications filed by John Hopkins University. Dr. Payne holds equity, grants, payments, and patent licensing from Cabaletta Bio and consults for Janssen.

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

A revolutionary treatment for cancers may also be able to treat and reset the immune system to provide long-term remission or possibly even cure certain autoimmune diseases.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has offered a novel approach to treating hematologic cancers since 2017, but there are early signs that these cellular immunotherapies could be repurposed for B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

In September of last year, researchers in Germany reported that five patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treated with CAR T-cell therapy all achieved drug-free remission. At the time of publication, no patients had relapsed for up to 17 months after treatment. The authors described seroconversion of antinuclear antibodies in two patients with the longest follow-up, “indicating that abrogation of autoimmune B-cell clones may lead to a more widespread correction of autoimmunity,” the researchers write.

In another case study published in June, researchers used CD-19 targeted CAR-T cells to treat a 41-year-old man with refractory antisynthetase syndrome with progressive myositis and interstitial lung disease. Six months after treatment, there were no signs of myositis on MRI and a chest CT scan showed full regression of alveolitis.

John Hopkins Medicine

Since then, two biotechnology companies – Cabaletta Bio in Philadelphia and Kyverna Therapeutics in Emeryville, Calif. – have already been granted fast-track designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CAR T-cell therapy for SLE and lupus nephritis. Bristol-Myers Squibb is also conducting a phase 1 trial in patients with severe, refractory SLE. Several biotechnology companies and hospitals in China are also conducting clinical trials for SLE. But this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding cellular therapies for autoimmune disease, said Max Konig, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It’s an incredibly exciting time. It’s unprecedented in the history of autoimmunity,” he noted.
 

A ‘reboot’ for the immune system

B-cell targeted therapies have been around since the early 2000s with drugs like rituximab, a monoclonal antibody medication that targets CD20, an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells. The CAR T cells currently available target another surface antigen, CD19, and are a much more potent therapy. Both are effective at depleting B cells in blood, but these engineered CD19-targeted T cells can reach B cells sitting in tissues in a way that antibody therapies cannot, Dr. Konig explained.

“If you have a patient with myositis, for example, where autoreactive B cells are sitting in the inflamed muscle, or a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, where you have disease-relevant B cells in hard-to-reach tissues like the synovium, those cells are much harder to deplete with an antibody, compared to a T cell that evolved to surveil and effectively kill in all tissues,” he explained.

In this process, T cells are collected from patients via leukapheresis and then re-engineered to express chimeric antigen receptors. A few days before these modified T cells are infused back into the patient, the patients are given a low-dose chemotherapy (lymphodepletion) regimen to help increase the effectiveness of the therapy. The one-time infusion is generally given on an inpatient basis, and patients are then monitored in hospital for side effects.

Once B cells are depleted, disease symptoms improve. But in the case studies published to date, once B cells re-emerge, they are naïve and no longer producing autoreactive B cells.
 

“Maybe it’s like a tabula rasa: You wipe [the B cells] out and start with a clean slate. Then, the immune system reboots, and now it’s working, whereas before it was messed up,” said Carl June, MD, who directs the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at the at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. June and his research team led the development of CAR T-cell therapies for blood cancers.

The findings suggest that autoantibodies “might not be hardwired into the immune system,” he said.

But Dr. Konig stressed that we are still in the early days of clinical trials, and more research is necessary to understand the safety and efficacy of these therapies.

“There’s an incredible buzz around CAR T cells at the moment in rheumatology, which is great because I think that’s where the future is,” he said. “But we still need to learn how to appropriately apply these therapies in randomized, controlled trials.”

So far, the evidence behind CD19 CAR T-cell therapies in autoimmune disease is from case studies and phase 1 trials in a very small number of selected patients. (The upcoming Cabaletta and Kyverna trials in lupus will also be small, consisting of 12 patients each.)
 

Risks of intensive therapy

But while these therapies show promise, the process is very intensive. The lymphodepleting regimen increases the risk for infection and patients are commonly hospitalized for a week or more following infusion for toxicity monitoring. Serious adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can occur days to weeks after CAR T-cell infusion. In the five-patient case series reported in 2022, patients were hospitalized for 10 days following treatment.

The patient with antisynthetase syndrome, as well as three of five patients in the SLE case series study experienced mild CRS following infusion. Patients are also at a high risk for infection, as the engineered T cells target all B cells, not just the autoreactive immune cells.

The inability to differentiate between disease-causing and protective immune cells is an issue for all currently available drugs treating autoimmune disease, Dr. Konig said. But scientists are already working on how to make these potent cellular therapies safer and more precise.
 

Alternatives to standard CAR T-cell therapies

Engineering T cells with RNA is a new approach to limit the side effects and toxicity of CAR T-cell therapy, said Chris Jewell, PhD, the chief scientific officer at Cartesian Therapeutics, a biotechnology company based in Gaithersburg, Md. The company’s RNA CAR T-cell (rCAR-T) therapy – called DESCARTES-08 – is in phase 2 clinical trials for treatment of myasthenia gravis. Once these rCAR-T cells are infused in patients, as they divide, the RNAnaturally decays, he explained, meaning that after a certain point, the CAR is no longer expressed.

Cartesian Therapeutics

DESCARTES-08 targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is primarily expressed on plasma cells, rather than all B cells, Dr. Jewell said.

“Targeting BCMA, we actually have a more selective profile,” he explained. “We are targeting the cells primarily responsible for the pathogenicity; many plasma cells – such as long-lived plasma cells – also take a long time to repopulate.”

This therapy also does not require lymphodepletion prior to infusion and can be done in an outpatient setting. The therapy is given in multiple infusions, once per week.

In the most recent clinical trial, patients with myasthenia gravis received six infusions over 6 weeks and experienced notable decreases in myasthenia gravis severity scale at up to 9 months of follow-up.

Abata Therapeutics

While standard CAR T-cell therapies under clinical investigational up to now all use effector T cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) can also be engineered to target autoimmune disease. Abata Therapeutics, based in Boston, is using this approach for therapies for progressive multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes. These engineered Tregs express a T-cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes tissue-specific antigens and suppress inflammation at the site of the disease. “Treg-based cell therapies are really harnessing the natural power of regulatory cells to reset immune tolerance and recalibrate the immune system,” said their chief medical officer, Leonard Dragone, MD, PhD.

These therapies are derived from terminally differentiated cells that have limited capacity to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, Dr. Dragone explained. “CRS is difficult to envision from engineered Treg products and hasn’t been observed in any clinical experience with polyclonal Tregs,” he said.

This approach also does not require lymphodepletion prior to treatment. The company’s Treg cellular therapy for progressive MS is currently in investigational new drug-enabling studies, and they aim to dose their first patients in 2024.
 

Precision immunotherapy

For B-cell driven autoimmune diseases where the autoantibody is known, researchers have begun to re-engineer T cells to recognize only autoreactive B cells. While CD19 CAR T cells act more like a sledgehammer, these precision cellular immunotherapies are “like a razor’s strike,” Dr. June said.

University of Pennsylvania

“The chimeric autoantibody receptor (CAAR) approach targets autoantibodies that are expressed only on the surface of autoimmune B cells and are not expressed on normal B cells, which ideally should lead to precision targeting of just the cells that cause autoimmune disease,” explained Aimee Payne, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the Penn Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her research team used this approach to develop a treatment for mucosal pemphigus vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering disease of mucous membranes driven by autoantibodies against desmoglein 3.

“The current standard of care for pemphigus is to treat with steroids and rituximab, an infusion therapy that results in global, but temporary, B-cell depletion,” she said. “By expressing desmoglein 3 (DSG3) on the surface of the CAAR T-cell therapy, we target just the anti-DSG3 B cells that cause disease in mucosal pemphigus vulgaris and spare the healthy B cells.”

The therapy – called DSG3-CAART – is being developed by Cabaletta Bio and is now in phase 1 clinical trials. The approach is also being investigated to treat certain types of myasthenia gravis and membranous nephropathy.

Dr. Konig’s lab at Johns Hopkins developed and is now exploring a new precision cellular immunotherapy approach, chimeric autoantigen-T cell receptor (CATCR) T-cell therapy, to treat antiphospholipid syndrome, which is in preclinical stages. In this approach, Dr. Konig and his team are “re-engineering the natural T-cell receptor to selectively kill disease-causing B cells that drive antiphospholipid syndrome,” he explained.

He anticipates the CD19 CAR T-cell therapies currently in clinical trials will help to pave the way for this new generation of precision cellular therapies. The ultimate goal of these therapies, he said, is to uncouple therapeutic potency from infection risk.

“That’s really the holy grail in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. It’s tantalizingly close, but we’re not there yet.”

Dr. June is an inventor on patents and/or patent applications licensed to Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research and receives license revenue from such licenses. Dr. June is a scientific founder of Tmunity Therapeutics and Capstan Therapeutics and is a member of the scientific advisory boards of AC Immune SA, Alaunos, BlueSphere Bio, Cabaletta, Carisma, Cartography Biosciences, Cellares, Celldex, Decheng Capital, Poseida, Verismo, and WIRB-Copernicus Group. Dr. Konig is a consultant for argenx and Revel and is listed as inventor for patent applications filed by John Hopkins University. Dr. Payne holds equity, grants, payments, and patent licensing from Cabaletta Bio and consults for Janssen.

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

Despite recent strides in the management and treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD), persistent misconceptions and ongoing issues – such as low utilization of important new therapies – reveal a pressing need to better inform both clinicians and patients about this condition.

Affecting more than 20 million people globally and 100,000 people nationwide, SCD is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States. It occurs largely but not exclusively among people of African descent.

Patients with SCD develop crescent-shaped or “sickled” red blood cells that, unlike normally round cells, can potentially block blood flow and thus cause a host of problems ranging from a risk of stroke or infections to sometimes severe pain crises, called vaso-occlusive episodes.

To help ward off such complications, some key preventative measures and an array of therapies have become available in recent years: Newborn screening and prophylaxis, including the introduction of pneumococcal vaccines, have substantially reduced rates of invasive pneumococcal infection, which previously accounted for 32% of all causes of death in patients with SCD under the age of 20.

And while hydroxyurea was the only medication from 1998 to 2017 to alleviate acute pain episodes in SCD, newer options have become available in recent years, with l-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab gaining FDA approval to further help prevent the episodes.

However, studies show that many if not most patients fail to receive adequate treatment, with one recent report indicating that, between 2016 and 2020, hydroxyurea was prescribed to fewer than 25% of patients with SCD, and fewer than 4% of people with the disease who experience chronic pain episodes had prescriptions for the newer FDA-approved drugs.
 

Myths and truths

To help clarify some common misconceptions that contribute to the problems, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, detailed some of the most prevalent and persistent myths among clinicians about SCD:

courtesy University of Illinois

Pain level

Myths: Firstly, that sickle cell pain is not that bad, and patients therefore don’t really need opioid pain treatment, and secondly, that sickle cell pain is measurable by lab tests, such as the number of sickled red blood cells on a blood smear, reticulocytes, or hemoglobin level.

Truths: “Sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain can be very severe – a 10 on a scale of 10 – but the pain is usually only known by subjective report,” said Dr. Hsu, a pediatric hematologist who serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“No lab test can be used to measure pain,” he said. “Other lab tests can be abnormal, and some have statistical correlation with lifetime severity of disease course, but the lab tests are not for determination of acute level of pain or absence of pain.”

Blacks only

Myth: SCD only affects Black people.

Truth: People who have sickle cell disease from many ethnic backgrounds and skin colors.

“Around the Mediterranean, there are sickle cell patients from Greece, Turkey, Italy, and Spain. Some are blond and blue-eyed. People in India and Pakistan have sickle cell disease,” Dr. Hsu explained.

In addition, “people from the Arabian Peninsula have sickle cell disease; some Malaysians have sickle cell disease; one child who is about third generation in Hong Kong has sickle cell disease.”

Parental link

Myth: Sickle cell disease only occurs in individuals both of whose parents have the sickle gene.

Truth: “There are types of sickle cell disease [involving] a sickle cell gene from one parent and a gene for hemoglobin C from the other parent,” Dr. Hsu noted. “Others inherited one sickle gene [from one parent] and inherited from the other parent a gene for beta thalassemia. Others involve an inherited sickle gene and hemoglobin E; others have inherited one sickle gene and inherited a gene for hemoglobin D-Punjab, while others have sickle and hemoglobin O-Arab.”

Effects beyond pain

Myth: A person who is not having sickle cell pain is otherwise not significantly affected by their disease.

Truth: “Organs can be damaged silently every day,” Dr. Hsu said. “Kidney failure, retina damage, and pulmonary hypertension are the most notable of organ systems that can suffer damage for a long time without symptoms, then develop symptoms when it is too late to intervene.”

“For this reason, individuals with sickle cell disease should have regular expert care for health maintenance that is disease specific,” Dr. Hsu added.
 

Consult guidelines

One final concern is a basic failure to utilize critical information sources and guidelines, especially by primary care providers and/or other nonspecialists from whom patients with SCD may often seek treatment. “Awareness of these guidelines is low,” Dr. Hsu said.

Key resources that can be helpful include evidence-based guidelines developed by an expert panel of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Society of Hematology has a Pocket Guide app on management of sickle cell disease.

Another key resource being highlighted in September, which is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, is the NHLBI’s comprehensive website, providing information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with SCD.

“We are trying to bring more sickle cell information and case studies into medical school curricula, nursing curricula, social workers and community health workers awareness, [and] apps and online guidelines are proliferating,” Dr. Hsu says.

He goes on to say, “We need more recognition and resources from insurance providers that quality care for sickle cell disease is measured and rewarded.”

Dr. Hsu coauthored “Hope and Destiny: The Patient and Parent’s Guide to Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait.” He reported relationships with Novartis, Emmaus, Forma Therapeutic, Dupont/Nemours Children’s Hospital, Hilton Publishing, Asklepion, Bayer, CRISPR/Vertex, Cyclerion, Pfizer, and Aruvant.
 

Despite recent strides in the management and treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD), persistent misconceptions and ongoing issues – such as low utilization of important new therapies – reveal a pressing need to better inform both clinicians and patients about this condition.

Affecting more than 20 million people globally and 100,000 people nationwide, SCD is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States. It occurs largely but not exclusively among people of African descent.

Patients with SCD develop crescent-shaped or “sickled” red blood cells that, unlike normally round cells, can potentially block blood flow and thus cause a host of problems ranging from a risk of stroke or infections to sometimes severe pain crises, called vaso-occlusive episodes.

To help ward off such complications, some key preventative measures and an array of therapies have become available in recent years: Newborn screening and prophylaxis, including the introduction of pneumococcal vaccines, have substantially reduced rates of invasive pneumococcal infection, which previously accounted for 32% of all causes of death in patients with SCD under the age of 20.

And while hydroxyurea was the only medication from 1998 to 2017 to alleviate acute pain episodes in SCD, newer options have become available in recent years, with l-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab gaining FDA approval to further help prevent the episodes.

However, studies show that many if not most patients fail to receive adequate treatment, with one recent report indicating that, between 2016 and 2020, hydroxyurea was prescribed to fewer than 25% of patients with SCD, and fewer than 4% of people with the disease who experience chronic pain episodes had prescriptions for the newer FDA-approved drugs.
 

Myths and truths

To help clarify some common misconceptions that contribute to the problems, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, detailed some of the most prevalent and persistent myths among clinicians about SCD:

courtesy University of Illinois

Pain level

Myths: Firstly, that sickle cell pain is not that bad, and patients therefore don’t really need opioid pain treatment, and secondly, that sickle cell pain is measurable by lab tests, such as the number of sickled red blood cells on a blood smear, reticulocytes, or hemoglobin level.

Truths: “Sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain can be very severe – a 10 on a scale of 10 – but the pain is usually only known by subjective report,” said Dr. Hsu, a pediatric hematologist who serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“No lab test can be used to measure pain,” he said. “Other lab tests can be abnormal, and some have statistical correlation with lifetime severity of disease course, but the lab tests are not for determination of acute level of pain or absence of pain.”

Blacks only

Myth: SCD only affects Black people.

Truth: People who have sickle cell disease from many ethnic backgrounds and skin colors.

“Around the Mediterranean, there are sickle cell patients from Greece, Turkey, Italy, and Spain. Some are blond and blue-eyed. People in India and Pakistan have sickle cell disease,” Dr. Hsu explained.

In addition, “people from the Arabian Peninsula have sickle cell disease; some Malaysians have sickle cell disease; one child who is about third generation in Hong Kong has sickle cell disease.”

Parental link

Myth: Sickle cell disease only occurs in individuals both of whose parents have the sickle gene.

Truth: “There are types of sickle cell disease [involving] a sickle cell gene from one parent and a gene for hemoglobin C from the other parent,” Dr. Hsu noted. “Others inherited one sickle gene [from one parent] and inherited from the other parent a gene for beta thalassemia. Others involve an inherited sickle gene and hemoglobin E; others have inherited one sickle gene and inherited a gene for hemoglobin D-Punjab, while others have sickle and hemoglobin O-Arab.”

Effects beyond pain

Myth: A person who is not having sickle cell pain is otherwise not significantly affected by their disease.

Truth: “Organs can be damaged silently every day,” Dr. Hsu said. “Kidney failure, retina damage, and pulmonary hypertension are the most notable of organ systems that can suffer damage for a long time without symptoms, then develop symptoms when it is too late to intervene.”

“For this reason, individuals with sickle cell disease should have regular expert care for health maintenance that is disease specific,” Dr. Hsu added.
 

Consult guidelines

One final concern is a basic failure to utilize critical information sources and guidelines, especially by primary care providers and/or other nonspecialists from whom patients with SCD may often seek treatment. “Awareness of these guidelines is low,” Dr. Hsu said.

Key resources that can be helpful include evidence-based guidelines developed by an expert panel of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Society of Hematology has a Pocket Guide app on management of sickle cell disease.

Another key resource being highlighted in September, which is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, is the NHLBI’s comprehensive website, providing information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with SCD.

“We are trying to bring more sickle cell information and case studies into medical school curricula, nursing curricula, social workers and community health workers awareness, [and] apps and online guidelines are proliferating,” Dr. Hsu says.

He goes on to say, “We need more recognition and resources from insurance providers that quality care for sickle cell disease is measured and rewarded.”

Dr. Hsu coauthored “Hope and Destiny: The Patient and Parent’s Guide to Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait.” He reported relationships with Novartis, Emmaus, Forma Therapeutic, Dupont/Nemours Children’s Hospital, Hilton Publishing, Asklepion, Bayer, CRISPR/Vertex, Cyclerion, Pfizer, and Aruvant.
 

Despite recent strides in the management and treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD), persistent misconceptions and ongoing issues – such as low utilization of important new therapies – reveal a pressing need to better inform both clinicians and patients about this condition.

Affecting more than 20 million people globally and 100,000 people nationwide, SCD is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States. It occurs largely but not exclusively among people of African descent.

Patients with SCD develop crescent-shaped or “sickled” red blood cells that, unlike normally round cells, can potentially block blood flow and thus cause a host of problems ranging from a risk of stroke or infections to sometimes severe pain crises, called vaso-occlusive episodes.

To help ward off such complications, some key preventative measures and an array of therapies have become available in recent years: Newborn screening and prophylaxis, including the introduction of pneumococcal vaccines, have substantially reduced rates of invasive pneumococcal infection, which previously accounted for 32% of all causes of death in patients with SCD under the age of 20.

And while hydroxyurea was the only medication from 1998 to 2017 to alleviate acute pain episodes in SCD, newer options have become available in recent years, with l-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab gaining FDA approval to further help prevent the episodes.

However, studies show that many if not most patients fail to receive adequate treatment, with one recent report indicating that, between 2016 and 2020, hydroxyurea was prescribed to fewer than 25% of patients with SCD, and fewer than 4% of people with the disease who experience chronic pain episodes had prescriptions for the newer FDA-approved drugs.
 

Myths and truths

To help clarify some common misconceptions that contribute to the problems, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, detailed some of the most prevalent and persistent myths among clinicians about SCD:

courtesy University of Illinois

Pain level

Myths: Firstly, that sickle cell pain is not that bad, and patients therefore don’t really need opioid pain treatment, and secondly, that sickle cell pain is measurable by lab tests, such as the number of sickled red blood cells on a blood smear, reticulocytes, or hemoglobin level.

Truths: “Sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain can be very severe – a 10 on a scale of 10 – but the pain is usually only known by subjective report,” said Dr. Hsu, a pediatric hematologist who serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“No lab test can be used to measure pain,” he said. “Other lab tests can be abnormal, and some have statistical correlation with lifetime severity of disease course, but the lab tests are not for determination of acute level of pain or absence of pain.”

Blacks only

Myth: SCD only affects Black people.

Truth: People who have sickle cell disease from many ethnic backgrounds and skin colors.

“Around the Mediterranean, there are sickle cell patients from Greece, Turkey, Italy, and Spain. Some are blond and blue-eyed. People in India and Pakistan have sickle cell disease,” Dr. Hsu explained.

In addition, “people from the Arabian Peninsula have sickle cell disease; some Malaysians have sickle cell disease; one child who is about third generation in Hong Kong has sickle cell disease.”

Parental link

Myth: Sickle cell disease only occurs in individuals both of whose parents have the sickle gene.

Truth: “There are types of sickle cell disease [involving] a sickle cell gene from one parent and a gene for hemoglobin C from the other parent,” Dr. Hsu noted. “Others inherited one sickle gene [from one parent] and inherited from the other parent a gene for beta thalassemia. Others involve an inherited sickle gene and hemoglobin E; others have inherited one sickle gene and inherited a gene for hemoglobin D-Punjab, while others have sickle and hemoglobin O-Arab.”

Effects beyond pain

Myth: A person who is not having sickle cell pain is otherwise not significantly affected by their disease.

Truth: “Organs can be damaged silently every day,” Dr. Hsu said. “Kidney failure, retina damage, and pulmonary hypertension are the most notable of organ systems that can suffer damage for a long time without symptoms, then develop symptoms when it is too late to intervene.”

“For this reason, individuals with sickle cell disease should have regular expert care for health maintenance that is disease specific,” Dr. Hsu added.
 

Consult guidelines

One final concern is a basic failure to utilize critical information sources and guidelines, especially by primary care providers and/or other nonspecialists from whom patients with SCD may often seek treatment. “Awareness of these guidelines is low,” Dr. Hsu said.

Key resources that can be helpful include evidence-based guidelines developed by an expert panel of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Society of Hematology has a Pocket Guide app on management of sickle cell disease.

Another key resource being highlighted in September, which is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, is the NHLBI’s comprehensive website, providing information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with SCD.

“We are trying to bring more sickle cell information and case studies into medical school curricula, nursing curricula, social workers and community health workers awareness, [and] apps and online guidelines are proliferating,” Dr. Hsu says.

He goes on to say, “We need more recognition and resources from insurance providers that quality care for sickle cell disease is measured and rewarded.”

Dr. Hsu coauthored “Hope and Destiny: The Patient and Parent’s Guide to Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait.” He reported relationships with Novartis, Emmaus, Forma Therapeutic, Dupont/Nemours Children’s Hospital, Hilton Publishing, Asklepion, Bayer, CRISPR/Vertex, Cyclerion, Pfizer, and Aruvant.
 

Having grown up with sickle cell disease (SCD), Titilope Fasipe, MD, PhD, codirector of the sickle cell program at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, knows firsthand the physical pain, mental anguish, and dread that have long accompanied this condition. So few child patients lived to reach adulthood that until recently, SCD was considered a pediatric disease.

These days, thanks to transformative advances in treating SCD that have substantially improved survival, Dr. Fasipe’s mission for a new generation of patients and their families is to replace their pain and fear with relief and hope.

Courtesy Racheal Adetayo Artistry

“If you grow up thinking that you’re going to die when you’re 18, it changes your world and your viewpoints, and it impacts your mental health,” she told this news organization.

“We are trying to make sure our children and their families know that there is a new story for sickle cell disease, and you don’t have to use any age as your prediction marker for your lifespan,” Dr. Fasipe said.

SCD, which affects about 100,000 people nationwide, is an inherited blood disorder, with the majority of patients – but not all – being of African descent. This condition is characterized by pain crises, or vaso-occlusive episodes, triggered when cells that are sickled get stuck and impede blood flow. These crises can come on suddenly and range from mild to severe.

Dr. Fasipe was born in Nigeria, where rates of SCD are among the world’s highest. She attended elementary school in the United States, where her father was studying theology, before returning to Nigeria with her family at age 11.

Back in those days, in both nations only about 50% of children with SCD lived beyond their 18th birthday. The survival rates in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa countries continue to be poor. In some more developed regions elsewhere, advances such as universal newborn screening, penicillin prophylaxis, pneumococcal vaccination, stroke screening, and hydroxyurea therapy have yielded substantial improvements, with 95% or more patients with SCD reaching their 18th birthday.

“With measures such as newborn screening, we can immediately start prevention measures in sickle cell disease, such as prevention of infection, which was the number one reason why children were dying,” Dr. Fasipe explained. “With global initiatives, we want that story to be the same in sub-Saharan Africa as well.”
 

Cousin’s early death inspires medical studies

In an essay published by Texas Medical Center that describes her childhood experiences, Dr. Fasipe recounts a pivotal event in her life: The heartbreaking death of her beloved cousin at the age of just 17, from a complication of SCD. This bereavement fueled Dr. Fasipe’s determination to pursue a medical career, to do all that she could to prevent such losses.

“Having sickle cell disease myself wasn’t the trigger that made me become a doctor. But when Femi [her cousin] died, I thought: ‘This shouldn’t happen,’ ” Dr. Fasipe wrote.

When she applied to medical school back in the United States, she declared in her application essay: “I want to cure sickle cell.”

By the time Dr. Fasipe was ready to undertake residency and fellowship applications, her essay had shifted to focus on pediatrics “specifically because I want to reach sickle cell patients before they’ve defined how their lives are going to be,” she said. “I want to give them hope.”
 

Hope for a cure

Fast-forwarding to this point in Dr. Fasipe’s career, she noted that her dream of a cure for SCD is no longer a distant aspiration, thanks to the advent of stem cell transplantation and more recently, gene therapy. These advancements have elevated her hope for a cure to an entirely new level.

Each new treatment comes with caveats. Stem cell transplantation requires a matching donor, leaving the majority of patients ineligible. And while gene therapy eliminates the need for a donor, treatment can reportedly cost nearly $3 million. Nevertheless, Dr. Fasipe emphasized the promise that these new advancements represent.

“The scientists that work in these spaces do appreciate these [accessibility barriers], and the expectation is these therapies will be more accessible with time and effort,” she said. “We’ve got to start somewhere, and it’s exciting that they’re making these early successes.”
 

Advice for clinicians

With firsthand knowledge of how it feels to be the patient, as well as on the clinician side of SCD treatment, Dr. Fasipe advises colleagues on some ways that they can improve care while boosting their patients’ hope:

Speak with empathy

Acknowledge the ‘elephant in the room’; the pain that patients with SCD can experience is real.

“When I’m managing any patient with pain, I first acknowledge the suffering because while we may not understand what that person is going through, acknowledgment is part of showing empathy,” she explains.

Seek out resources

Patients with SCD may typically seek treatment in primary care, where expertise in the disease may be lacking, and general practitioners may feel frustrated that there are limited treatment options.

“If you do find yourself treating a sickle cell disease patient, you may not have all of the answers, but there are good resources, whether it’s a nearby sickle cell disease centers or national guidelines,” Dr. Fasipe said.

Access to treatment

With research, including a recent study, showing that only about 25% of patients with SCD are prescribed hydroxyurea and even fewer – only about 5% – receive more recently approved SCD treatments, clinicians should be proactive by making sure that patients receive needed treatments.

“Clearly medicines like hydroxyurea are not as optimized in this community space as they should be, and then there are newer therapies that families, patients, and even providers may not be aware of, so it is important to be informed of the guidelines and provide all patients with comprehensive, high-quality care,” Dr. Fasipe said.

In the ED, patients with SCD are ‘care-seeking,’ not drug-seeking

Due to the sometimes rapid onset of severe pain symptoms, patients with SCD commonly wind up in the emergency department. In this time of an opioid epidemic, patients too often are suspected of merely seeking drugs.

“Sickle cell disease tends to get lumped into a category of a disease of pain, but pain is subjective and it is difficult to quantify, so unfortunately, patients can be labeled as potentially drug-seeking,” Dr. Fasipe explained, citing an article that detailed this problem.

Consequently, patients may have particularly negative experiences in the emergency department, but the use of resources such as a sickle cell disease point-of-care tool developed by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Hematology can help improve care for those patients.

“One of the [point-of-care recommendations] before even managing the pain is that physicians show compassion by acknowledging the patient’s pain and that they understand why pain with sickle cell disease might look different than other types of pain,” Dr. Fasipe said.
 

Building trust

Encounters such as negative emergency department experiences can perpetuate a deeper issue of distrust between those with SCD and the medical community, which originated in long-held, well-documented racial disparities in health care.

“We know historically and even today that there are difficulties facing our families who are impacted by sickle cell disease, and they are related to structural racism and socioeconomic barriers,” Dr. Fasipe explained.

With these issues in mind, she said, “I refer to sickle cell disease as the medical representation of the Black experience in America.” However, she added, the good news is “we are now doing our best now to improve that.”

Among key efforts in building trust is the inclusion of patients with SCD and their families in as many aspects of research and clinical care as possible.

“In the global health care community, it is imperative to invite people with sickle cell disease and from the community to the decision-making table,” she noted.

“Now, when we’re talking about research for therapies, their expectation is that research trials and other initiatives for sickle cell disease must have input from the community; there are no initiatives for sickle cell disease that do not have input from the community.

“The patients and community members may not be experts on the science of sickle cell, but they’re experts on the lived experience and that’s very important when you’re thinking about new bringing in a new therapy.”
 

Forward momentum

Meanwhile, Dr. Fasipe observed, with the collective, advocacy-driven, forward momentum of the SCD community as a whole, things should only continue to improve.

“Because of the various barriers, some progress may not be immediately around the corner, but I do have confidence that this current generation of children with sickle cell will have improved health equity by the time they reach adulthood,” she said.

“I believe in this future, so I’m doing the work now, and it’s a promise I tell parents: I want your future adult child to live their best life, and we’re working hard to ensure that that becomes their future reality.”
 

Sickle cell disease awareness

September is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers a comprehensive website that clinicians can pass along to their patients, with information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with the disease.

In a comment, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, underscored the uniquely important contributions of people like Dr. Fasipe, in providing inspiration to patients and clinicians alike.

“I have worked with several physicians, nurses, psychologists, and public health specialists who have sickle cell disease,” said Dr. Hsu, who is a pediatric hematologist who also serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“They are ambassadors who have the trust of both patients and healthcare providers,” Dr. Hsu said.

In addition to providing inspiration of resilience, such care providers can serve as “communication bridges,” he explained.

“When they are conference speakers, everybody wants to hear them; when they sit on advisory committees or focus groups, they can help find the compromise or set the priorities.”

“Their impact on the whole sickle cell community is very large,” Dr. Hsu said.

Having grown up with sickle cell disease (SCD), Titilope Fasipe, MD, PhD, codirector of the sickle cell program at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, knows firsthand the physical pain, mental anguish, and dread that have long accompanied this condition. So few child patients lived to reach adulthood that until recently, SCD was considered a pediatric disease.

These days, thanks to transformative advances in treating SCD that have substantially improved survival, Dr. Fasipe’s mission for a new generation of patients and their families is to replace their pain and fear with relief and hope.

Courtesy Racheal Adetayo Artistry

“If you grow up thinking that you’re going to die when you’re 18, it changes your world and your viewpoints, and it impacts your mental health,” she told this news organization.

“We are trying to make sure our children and their families know that there is a new story for sickle cell disease, and you don’t have to use any age as your prediction marker for your lifespan,” Dr. Fasipe said.

SCD, which affects about 100,000 people nationwide, is an inherited blood disorder, with the majority of patients – but not all – being of African descent. This condition is characterized by pain crises, or vaso-occlusive episodes, triggered when cells that are sickled get stuck and impede blood flow. These crises can come on suddenly and range from mild to severe.

Dr. Fasipe was born in Nigeria, where rates of SCD are among the world’s highest. She attended elementary school in the United States, where her father was studying theology, before returning to Nigeria with her family at age 11.

Back in those days, in both nations only about 50% of children with SCD lived beyond their 18th birthday. The survival rates in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa countries continue to be poor. In some more developed regions elsewhere, advances such as universal newborn screening, penicillin prophylaxis, pneumococcal vaccination, stroke screening, and hydroxyurea therapy have yielded substantial improvements, with 95% or more patients with SCD reaching their 18th birthday.

“With measures such as newborn screening, we can immediately start prevention measures in sickle cell disease, such as prevention of infection, which was the number one reason why children were dying,” Dr. Fasipe explained. “With global initiatives, we want that story to be the same in sub-Saharan Africa as well.”
 

Cousin’s early death inspires medical studies

In an essay published by Texas Medical Center that describes her childhood experiences, Dr. Fasipe recounts a pivotal event in her life: The heartbreaking death of her beloved cousin at the age of just 17, from a complication of SCD. This bereavement fueled Dr. Fasipe’s determination to pursue a medical career, to do all that she could to prevent such losses.

“Having sickle cell disease myself wasn’t the trigger that made me become a doctor. But when Femi [her cousin] died, I thought: ‘This shouldn’t happen,’ ” Dr. Fasipe wrote.

When she applied to medical school back in the United States, she declared in her application essay: “I want to cure sickle cell.”

By the time Dr. Fasipe was ready to undertake residency and fellowship applications, her essay had shifted to focus on pediatrics “specifically because I want to reach sickle cell patients before they’ve defined how their lives are going to be,” she said. “I want to give them hope.”
 

Hope for a cure

Fast-forwarding to this point in Dr. Fasipe’s career, she noted that her dream of a cure for SCD is no longer a distant aspiration, thanks to the advent of stem cell transplantation and more recently, gene therapy. These advancements have elevated her hope for a cure to an entirely new level.

Each new treatment comes with caveats. Stem cell transplantation requires a matching donor, leaving the majority of patients ineligible. And while gene therapy eliminates the need for a donor, treatment can reportedly cost nearly $3 million. Nevertheless, Dr. Fasipe emphasized the promise that these new advancements represent.

“The scientists that work in these spaces do appreciate these [accessibility barriers], and the expectation is these therapies will be more accessible with time and effort,” she said. “We’ve got to start somewhere, and it’s exciting that they’re making these early successes.”
 

Advice for clinicians

With firsthand knowledge of how it feels to be the patient, as well as on the clinician side of SCD treatment, Dr. Fasipe advises colleagues on some ways that they can improve care while boosting their patients’ hope:

Speak with empathy

Acknowledge the ‘elephant in the room’; the pain that patients with SCD can experience is real.

“When I’m managing any patient with pain, I first acknowledge the suffering because while we may not understand what that person is going through, acknowledgment is part of showing empathy,” she explains.

Seek out resources

Patients with SCD may typically seek treatment in primary care, where expertise in the disease may be lacking, and general practitioners may feel frustrated that there are limited treatment options.

“If you do find yourself treating a sickle cell disease patient, you may not have all of the answers, but there are good resources, whether it’s a nearby sickle cell disease centers or national guidelines,” Dr. Fasipe said.

Access to treatment

With research, including a recent study, showing that only about 25% of patients with SCD are prescribed hydroxyurea and even fewer – only about 5% – receive more recently approved SCD treatments, clinicians should be proactive by making sure that patients receive needed treatments.

“Clearly medicines like hydroxyurea are not as optimized in this community space as they should be, and then there are newer therapies that families, patients, and even providers may not be aware of, so it is important to be informed of the guidelines and provide all patients with comprehensive, high-quality care,” Dr. Fasipe said.

In the ED, patients with SCD are ‘care-seeking,’ not drug-seeking

Due to the sometimes rapid onset of severe pain symptoms, patients with SCD commonly wind up in the emergency department. In this time of an opioid epidemic, patients too often are suspected of merely seeking drugs.

“Sickle cell disease tends to get lumped into a category of a disease of pain, but pain is subjective and it is difficult to quantify, so unfortunately, patients can be labeled as potentially drug-seeking,” Dr. Fasipe explained, citing an article that detailed this problem.

Consequently, patients may have particularly negative experiences in the emergency department, but the use of resources such as a sickle cell disease point-of-care tool developed by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Hematology can help improve care for those patients.

“One of the [point-of-care recommendations] before even managing the pain is that physicians show compassion by acknowledging the patient’s pain and that they understand why pain with sickle cell disease might look different than other types of pain,” Dr. Fasipe said.
 

Building trust

Encounters such as negative emergency department experiences can perpetuate a deeper issue of distrust between those with SCD and the medical community, which originated in long-held, well-documented racial disparities in health care.

“We know historically and even today that there are difficulties facing our families who are impacted by sickle cell disease, and they are related to structural racism and socioeconomic barriers,” Dr. Fasipe explained.

With these issues in mind, she said, “I refer to sickle cell disease as the medical representation of the Black experience in America.” However, she added, the good news is “we are now doing our best now to improve that.”

Among key efforts in building trust is the inclusion of patients with SCD and their families in as many aspects of research and clinical care as possible.

“In the global health care community, it is imperative to invite people with sickle cell disease and from the community to the decision-making table,” she noted.

“Now, when we’re talking about research for therapies, their expectation is that research trials and other initiatives for sickle cell disease must have input from the community; there are no initiatives for sickle cell disease that do not have input from the community.

“The patients and community members may not be experts on the science of sickle cell, but they’re experts on the lived experience and that’s very important when you’re thinking about new bringing in a new therapy.”
 

Forward momentum

Meanwhile, Dr. Fasipe observed, with the collective, advocacy-driven, forward momentum of the SCD community as a whole, things should only continue to improve.

“Because of the various barriers, some progress may not be immediately around the corner, but I do have confidence that this current generation of children with sickle cell will have improved health equity by the time they reach adulthood,” she said.

“I believe in this future, so I’m doing the work now, and it’s a promise I tell parents: I want your future adult child to live their best life, and we’re working hard to ensure that that becomes their future reality.”
 

Sickle cell disease awareness

September is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers a comprehensive website that clinicians can pass along to their patients, with information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with the disease.

In a comment, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, underscored the uniquely important contributions of people like Dr. Fasipe, in providing inspiration to patients and clinicians alike.

“I have worked with several physicians, nurses, psychologists, and public health specialists who have sickle cell disease,” said Dr. Hsu, who is a pediatric hematologist who also serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“They are ambassadors who have the trust of both patients and healthcare providers,” Dr. Hsu said.

In addition to providing inspiration of resilience, such care providers can serve as “communication bridges,” he explained.

“When they are conference speakers, everybody wants to hear them; when they sit on advisory committees or focus groups, they can help find the compromise or set the priorities.”

“Their impact on the whole sickle cell community is very large,” Dr. Hsu said.

Having grown up with sickle cell disease (SCD), Titilope Fasipe, MD, PhD, codirector of the sickle cell program at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, knows firsthand the physical pain, mental anguish, and dread that have long accompanied this condition. So few child patients lived to reach adulthood that until recently, SCD was considered a pediatric disease.

These days, thanks to transformative advances in treating SCD that have substantially improved survival, Dr. Fasipe’s mission for a new generation of patients and their families is to replace their pain and fear with relief and hope.

Courtesy Racheal Adetayo Artistry

“If you grow up thinking that you’re going to die when you’re 18, it changes your world and your viewpoints, and it impacts your mental health,” she told this news organization.

“We are trying to make sure our children and their families know that there is a new story for sickle cell disease, and you don’t have to use any age as your prediction marker for your lifespan,” Dr. Fasipe said.

SCD, which affects about 100,000 people nationwide, is an inherited blood disorder, with the majority of patients – but not all – being of African descent. This condition is characterized by pain crises, or vaso-occlusive episodes, triggered when cells that are sickled get stuck and impede blood flow. These crises can come on suddenly and range from mild to severe.

Dr. Fasipe was born in Nigeria, where rates of SCD are among the world’s highest. She attended elementary school in the United States, where her father was studying theology, before returning to Nigeria with her family at age 11.

Back in those days, in both nations only about 50% of children with SCD lived beyond their 18th birthday. The survival rates in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa countries continue to be poor. In some more developed regions elsewhere, advances such as universal newborn screening, penicillin prophylaxis, pneumococcal vaccination, stroke screening, and hydroxyurea therapy have yielded substantial improvements, with 95% or more patients with SCD reaching their 18th birthday.

“With measures such as newborn screening, we can immediately start prevention measures in sickle cell disease, such as prevention of infection, which was the number one reason why children were dying,” Dr. Fasipe explained. “With global initiatives, we want that story to be the same in sub-Saharan Africa as well.”
 

Cousin’s early death inspires medical studies

In an essay published by Texas Medical Center that describes her childhood experiences, Dr. Fasipe recounts a pivotal event in her life: The heartbreaking death of her beloved cousin at the age of just 17, from a complication of SCD. This bereavement fueled Dr. Fasipe’s determination to pursue a medical career, to do all that she could to prevent such losses.

“Having sickle cell disease myself wasn’t the trigger that made me become a doctor. But when Femi [her cousin] died, I thought: ‘This shouldn’t happen,’ ” Dr. Fasipe wrote.

When she applied to medical school back in the United States, she declared in her application essay: “I want to cure sickle cell.”

By the time Dr. Fasipe was ready to undertake residency and fellowship applications, her essay had shifted to focus on pediatrics “specifically because I want to reach sickle cell patients before they’ve defined how their lives are going to be,” she said. “I want to give them hope.”
 

Hope for a cure

Fast-forwarding to this point in Dr. Fasipe’s career, she noted that her dream of a cure for SCD is no longer a distant aspiration, thanks to the advent of stem cell transplantation and more recently, gene therapy. These advancements have elevated her hope for a cure to an entirely new level.

Each new treatment comes with caveats. Stem cell transplantation requires a matching donor, leaving the majority of patients ineligible. And while gene therapy eliminates the need for a donor, treatment can reportedly cost nearly $3 million. Nevertheless, Dr. Fasipe emphasized the promise that these new advancements represent.

“The scientists that work in these spaces do appreciate these [accessibility barriers], and the expectation is these therapies will be more accessible with time and effort,” she said. “We’ve got to start somewhere, and it’s exciting that they’re making these early successes.”
 

Advice for clinicians

With firsthand knowledge of how it feels to be the patient, as well as on the clinician side of SCD treatment, Dr. Fasipe advises colleagues on some ways that they can improve care while boosting their patients’ hope:

Speak with empathy

Acknowledge the ‘elephant in the room’; the pain that patients with SCD can experience is real.

“When I’m managing any patient with pain, I first acknowledge the suffering because while we may not understand what that person is going through, acknowledgment is part of showing empathy,” she explains.

Seek out resources

Patients with SCD may typically seek treatment in primary care, where expertise in the disease may be lacking, and general practitioners may feel frustrated that there are limited treatment options.

“If you do find yourself treating a sickle cell disease patient, you may not have all of the answers, but there are good resources, whether it’s a nearby sickle cell disease centers or national guidelines,” Dr. Fasipe said.

Access to treatment

With research, including a recent study, showing that only about 25% of patients with SCD are prescribed hydroxyurea and even fewer – only about 5% – receive more recently approved SCD treatments, clinicians should be proactive by making sure that patients receive needed treatments.

“Clearly medicines like hydroxyurea are not as optimized in this community space as they should be, and then there are newer therapies that families, patients, and even providers may not be aware of, so it is important to be informed of the guidelines and provide all patients with comprehensive, high-quality care,” Dr. Fasipe said.

In the ED, patients with SCD are ‘care-seeking,’ not drug-seeking

Due to the sometimes rapid onset of severe pain symptoms, patients with SCD commonly wind up in the emergency department. In this time of an opioid epidemic, patients too often are suspected of merely seeking drugs.

“Sickle cell disease tends to get lumped into a category of a disease of pain, but pain is subjective and it is difficult to quantify, so unfortunately, patients can be labeled as potentially drug-seeking,” Dr. Fasipe explained, citing an article that detailed this problem.

Consequently, patients may have particularly negative experiences in the emergency department, but the use of resources such as a sickle cell disease point-of-care tool developed by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Hematology can help improve care for those patients.

“One of the [point-of-care recommendations] before even managing the pain is that physicians show compassion by acknowledging the patient’s pain and that they understand why pain with sickle cell disease might look different than other types of pain,” Dr. Fasipe said.
 

Building trust

Encounters such as negative emergency department experiences can perpetuate a deeper issue of distrust between those with SCD and the medical community, which originated in long-held, well-documented racial disparities in health care.

“We know historically and even today that there are difficulties facing our families who are impacted by sickle cell disease, and they are related to structural racism and socioeconomic barriers,” Dr. Fasipe explained.

With these issues in mind, she said, “I refer to sickle cell disease as the medical representation of the Black experience in America.” However, she added, the good news is “we are now doing our best now to improve that.”

Among key efforts in building trust is the inclusion of patients with SCD and their families in as many aspects of research and clinical care as possible.

“In the global health care community, it is imperative to invite people with sickle cell disease and from the community to the decision-making table,” she noted.

“Now, when we’re talking about research for therapies, their expectation is that research trials and other initiatives for sickle cell disease must have input from the community; there are no initiatives for sickle cell disease that do not have input from the community.

“The patients and community members may not be experts on the science of sickle cell, but they’re experts on the lived experience and that’s very important when you’re thinking about new bringing in a new therapy.”
 

Forward momentum

Meanwhile, Dr. Fasipe observed, with the collective, advocacy-driven, forward momentum of the SCD community as a whole, things should only continue to improve.

“Because of the various barriers, some progress may not be immediately around the corner, but I do have confidence that this current generation of children with sickle cell will have improved health equity by the time they reach adulthood,” she said.

“I believe in this future, so I’m doing the work now, and it’s a promise I tell parents: I want your future adult child to live their best life, and we’re working hard to ensure that that becomes their future reality.”
 

Sickle cell disease awareness

September is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers a comprehensive website that clinicians can pass along to their patients, with information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with the disease.

In a comment, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, underscored the uniquely important contributions of people like Dr. Fasipe, in providing inspiration to patients and clinicians alike.

“I have worked with several physicians, nurses, psychologists, and public health specialists who have sickle cell disease,” said Dr. Hsu, who is a pediatric hematologist who also serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“They are ambassadors who have the trust of both patients and healthcare providers,” Dr. Hsu said.

In addition to providing inspiration of resilience, such care providers can serve as “communication bridges,” he explained.

“When they are conference speakers, everybody wants to hear them; when they sit on advisory committees or focus groups, they can help find the compromise or set the priorities.”

“Their impact on the whole sickle cell community is very large,” Dr. Hsu said.

I’m standing atop the Klein Matterhorn, staring out at the Alps, their moonscape peaks forming a jagged, terrifying, glorious white horizon.

I am small. But the emotions are huge. The joy: I get to be a part of all this today. The fear: It could kill me. More than kill me, it could consume me.

That’s what I always used to feel when training in Zermatt, Switzerland.

I was lucky. As a former U.S. Ski Team athlete, I was regularly able to experience such magnificent scenescapes – and feel the tactile insanity of it, too, the rise and fall of helicopters or trams taking us up the mountains, the slicing, frigid air at the summit, and the lurking on-edge feeling that you, tiny human, really aren’t meant to be standing where you are standing.

“Awe puts things in perspective,” said Craig Anderson, PhD, postdoctoral scholar at Washington University at St. Louis, and researcher of emotions and behavior. “It’s about feeling connected with people and part of the larger collective – and that makes it okay to feel small.”

Our modern world is at odds with awe. We tend to shrink into our daily lives, our problems, our devices, and the real-time emotional reactions to those things, especially anger.

It doesn’t have to be that way. A rising pile of research has shown how awe affects our brains and opens our minds – and we don’t have to be standing at the top of the Matterhorn to get the benefits.
 

‘In the upper reaches of pleasure and on the boundary of fear’

That’s how New York University ethical leadership professor Jonathan Haidt, PhD, and psychology professor Dacher Keltner, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley, defined awe in a seminal report from 2003.

The feeling is composed of two elements: perceived vastness (sensing something larger than ourselves) and accommodation (our need to process and understand that vastness). The researchers also wrote that awe could “change the course of life in profound and permanent ways.”

“There’s a correlation between people who are happier and those who report more feelings of awe,” said David Yaden, PhD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthor of “The Varieties of Spiritual Experience.” “It’s unclear, though, which way the causality runs. Is it that having more awe experiences makes people happier? Or that happy people have more awe. But there is a correlation.”

One aspect about awe that’s clear: When people experience it, they report feeling more connected. And that sense of connection can lead to prosocial behavior – such as serving others and engaging with one’s community.

“Feelings of isolation are quite difficult, and we’re social creatures, so when we feel connected, we can benefit from it,” Dr. Yaden said.

A 2022 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology revealed that awe “awakens self-transcendence, which in turn invigorates pursuit of the authentic self.”

While these effects can be seen as one individual’s benefits, the researchers posited that they also lead to prosocial behaviors. Another study conducted by the same scientists showed that awe led to greater-good behavior during the pandemic, to the tune of an increased willingness to donate blood. In this study, researchers also cited a correlation between feelings of awe and increased empathy.
 

The awe experience

Dr. Yaden joined Dr. Keltner and other researchers in creating a scale for the “awe experience,” and found six related factors: a feeling that time momentarily slows; a sense of self-diminishment (your sense of self becomes smaller); a sense of connectedness; feeling in the presence of something grand; the need to mentally process the experience; and physical changes, like goosebumps or feeling your jaw slightly drop.

“Any of these factors can be large or small,” Dr. Yaden noted, adding that awe can also feel positive or negative. A hurricane can instill awe, for example, and the experience might not be pleasant.

However, “it’s more common for the awe experience to be positive,” Dr. Yaden said.
 

How your brain processes awe

Functional MRI, by which brain activity is measured through blood flow, allows researchers to see what’s happening in the brain after an awe experience.

One study that was conducted in the Netherlands and was published in the journal Human Brain Mapping suggested that certain parts of the brain that are responsible for self-reflection were less “activated” when participants watched awe-inspiring videos.

The researchers posit that the “captivating nature of awe stimuli” could be responsible for such reductions, meaning participants’ brains were geared more toward feelings of connection with others or something greater – and a smaller sense of self.

Another study published in the journal Emotion revealed a link between awe and lower levels of inflammatory cytokines, so awe could have positive and potentially protective health benefits, as well.

And of course there are the physical and emotional benefits of nature, as dozens of studies reveal. Dr. Anderson’s research in the journal Emotion showed that nature “experiences” led to more feelings of awe and that the effects of nature also reduced stress and increased well-being.
 

Why we turn away from awe

The world we inhabit day to day isn’t conducive to experiencing awe – indoors, seated, reacting negatively to work or social media. The mentalities we forge because of this sometimes work against experiencing any form of awe.

Example: Some people don’t like to feel small. That requires a capacity for humility.

“That [feeling] can be threatening,” noted Dr. Anderson, who earned his doctorate studying as part of Dr. Keltner’s “Project Awe” research team at UC Berkeley.

The pandemic and politics and rise in angry Internet culture also contribute. And if you didn’t know, humans have a “negativity bias.”

“Our responses to stress tend to be stronger in magnitude than responses to positive things,” Dr. Anderson said. “Browsing the Internet and seeing negative things can hijack our responses. Anger really narrows our attention on what makes us angry.”

In that sense, anger is the antithesis of awe. As Dr. Anderson puts it: Awe broadens our attention to the world and “opens us up to other people and possibilities,” he said. “When we’re faced with daily hassles, when we experience something vast and awe-inspiring, those other problems aren’t as big of a deal.”
 

We crave awe in spite of ourselves

An awful lot of us are out there seeking awe, knowingly or not.

People have been stopping at scenic overlooks and climbing local peaks since forever, but let’s start with record-setting attendance at the most basic and accessible source of natural awe we have in the United States: national parks.

In 2022, 68% of the 312 million visitors sought out nature-based or recreational park activities (as opposed to historical or cultural activities). Even though a rise in national park visits in 2021 and 2022 could be attributed to pandemic-related behavior (the need for social distancing and/or the desire to get outside), people were flocking to parks prior to COVID-19. In fact, 33 parks set visitation records in 2019; 12 did so in 2022.

We also seek awe in man-made spectacle. Consider annual visitor numbers for the following:

• Golden Gate Bridge: 10 million
• : 4 million
• : 1.62 million

And what about the most awe-inducing experience ever manufactured: Space tourism. While catering to the wealthy for now, flying to space allows untrained people to enjoy something only a chosen few astronauts have been able to feel: the “overview effect,” a term coined by author Frank White for the shift in perspective that occurs in people who see Earth from space.

Upon his return from his Blue Origin flight, actor William Shatner was candid about his emotional experience. “I was crying,” he told NPR. “I didn’t know what I was crying about. It was the death that I saw in space and the lifeforce that I saw coming from the planet – the blue, the beige, and the white. And I realized one was death and the other was life.”

We want awe. We want to feel this way.
 

Adding everyday awe to your life

It may seem counterintuitive: Most awe-inspiring places are special occasion destinations, but in truth it’s possible to find awe each day. Outdoors and indoors.

Park Rx America, led by Robert Zarr, MD, MPH, boasts a network of nearly 1500 healthcare providers ready to “prescribe” walks or time in nature as part of healing. “Our growing community of ‘nature prescribers’ incorporate nature as a treatment option for their willing clients and patients,” Dr. Zarr said.

He also noted that awe is all about where you look, including in small places.

“Something as simple as going for a walk and stopping to notice the complexity of fractal patterns in the leaves, for example, leaves me with a sense of awe,” he said. “Although difficult to measure, there is no doubt that an important part of our health is intricately linked to these daily awe-filled moments.”

Nature is not the only way. Dr. Yaden suggested that going to a museum to see art or sporting events is also a way to experience the feeling.

An unexpected source of man-made awe: Screens. A study published in Nature showed that immersive video experiences (in this case, one achieved by virtual reality) were effective in eliciting an awe response in participants.

While virtual reality isn’t ubiquitous, immersive film experiences are. IMAX screens were created for just this purpose (as anyone who saw the Avatar films in this format can attest).

Is it perfect? No. But whether you’re witnessing a birth, hiking an autumn trail bathed in orange, or letting off a little gasp when you see Oppenheimer’s nuclear explosion in 70 mm, it all counts.

Because it’s not about the thing. It’s about your openness to be awed by the thing.

I’m a little like Dr. Zarr in that I can find wonder in the crystalline structures of a snowflake. And I also love to hike and inhale expansive views. If you can get to Switzerland, and specifically Zermatt, take the old red tram to the top. I highly recommend it.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m standing atop the Klein Matterhorn, staring out at the Alps, their moonscape peaks forming a jagged, terrifying, glorious white horizon.

I am small. But the emotions are huge. The joy: I get to be a part of all this today. The fear: It could kill me. More than kill me, it could consume me.

That’s what I always used to feel when training in Zermatt, Switzerland.

I was lucky. As a former U.S. Ski Team athlete, I was regularly able to experience such magnificent scenescapes – and feel the tactile insanity of it, too, the rise and fall of helicopters or trams taking us up the mountains, the slicing, frigid air at the summit, and the lurking on-edge feeling that you, tiny human, really aren’t meant to be standing where you are standing.

“Awe puts things in perspective,” said Craig Anderson, PhD, postdoctoral scholar at Washington University at St. Louis, and researcher of emotions and behavior. “It’s about feeling connected with people and part of the larger collective – and that makes it okay to feel small.”

Our modern world is at odds with awe. We tend to shrink into our daily lives, our problems, our devices, and the real-time emotional reactions to those things, especially anger.

It doesn’t have to be that way. A rising pile of research has shown how awe affects our brains and opens our minds – and we don’t have to be standing at the top of the Matterhorn to get the benefits.
 

‘In the upper reaches of pleasure and on the boundary of fear’

That’s how New York University ethical leadership professor Jonathan Haidt, PhD, and psychology professor Dacher Keltner, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley, defined awe in a seminal report from 2003.

The feeling is composed of two elements: perceived vastness (sensing something larger than ourselves) and accommodation (our need to process and understand that vastness). The researchers also wrote that awe could “change the course of life in profound and permanent ways.”

“There’s a correlation between people who are happier and those who report more feelings of awe,” said David Yaden, PhD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthor of “The Varieties of Spiritual Experience.” “It’s unclear, though, which way the causality runs. Is it that having more awe experiences makes people happier? Or that happy people have more awe. But there is a correlation.”

One aspect about awe that’s clear: When people experience it, they report feeling more connected. And that sense of connection can lead to prosocial behavior – such as serving others and engaging with one’s community.

“Feelings of isolation are quite difficult, and we’re social creatures, so when we feel connected, we can benefit from it,” Dr. Yaden said.

A 2022 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology revealed that awe “awakens self-transcendence, which in turn invigorates pursuit of the authentic self.”

While these effects can be seen as one individual’s benefits, the researchers posited that they also lead to prosocial behaviors. Another study conducted by the same scientists showed that awe led to greater-good behavior during the pandemic, to the tune of an increased willingness to donate blood. In this study, researchers also cited a correlation between feelings of awe and increased empathy.
 

The awe experience

Dr. Yaden joined Dr. Keltner and other researchers in creating a scale for the “awe experience,” and found six related factors: a feeling that time momentarily slows; a sense of self-diminishment (your sense of self becomes smaller); a sense of connectedness; feeling in the presence of something grand; the need to mentally process the experience; and physical changes, like goosebumps or feeling your jaw slightly drop.

“Any of these factors can be large or small,” Dr. Yaden noted, adding that awe can also feel positive or negative. A hurricane can instill awe, for example, and the experience might not be pleasant.

However, “it’s more common for the awe experience to be positive,” Dr. Yaden said.
 

How your brain processes awe

Functional MRI, by which brain activity is measured through blood flow, allows researchers to see what’s happening in the brain after an awe experience.

One study that was conducted in the Netherlands and was published in the journal Human Brain Mapping suggested that certain parts of the brain that are responsible for self-reflection were less “activated” when participants watched awe-inspiring videos.

The researchers posit that the “captivating nature of awe stimuli” could be responsible for such reductions, meaning participants’ brains were geared more toward feelings of connection with others or something greater – and a smaller sense of self.

Another study published in the journal Emotion revealed a link between awe and lower levels of inflammatory cytokines, so awe could have positive and potentially protective health benefits, as well.

And of course there are the physical and emotional benefits of nature, as dozens of studies reveal. Dr. Anderson’s research in the journal Emotion showed that nature “experiences” led to more feelings of awe and that the effects of nature also reduced stress and increased well-being.
 

Why we turn away from awe

The world we inhabit day to day isn’t conducive to experiencing awe – indoors, seated, reacting negatively to work or social media. The mentalities we forge because of this sometimes work against experiencing any form of awe.

Example: Some people don’t like to feel small. That requires a capacity for humility.

“That [feeling] can be threatening,” noted Dr. Anderson, who earned his doctorate studying as part of Dr. Keltner’s “Project Awe” research team at UC Berkeley.

The pandemic and politics and rise in angry Internet culture also contribute. And if you didn’t know, humans have a “negativity bias.”

“Our responses to stress tend to be stronger in magnitude than responses to positive things,” Dr. Anderson said. “Browsing the Internet and seeing negative things can hijack our responses. Anger really narrows our attention on what makes us angry.”

In that sense, anger is the antithesis of awe. As Dr. Anderson puts it: Awe broadens our attention to the world and “opens us up to other people and possibilities,” he said. “When we’re faced with daily hassles, when we experience something vast and awe-inspiring, those other problems aren’t as big of a deal.”
 

We crave awe in spite of ourselves

An awful lot of us are out there seeking awe, knowingly or not.

People have been stopping at scenic overlooks and climbing local peaks since forever, but let’s start with record-setting attendance at the most basic and accessible source of natural awe we have in the United States: national parks.

In 2022, 68% of the 312 million visitors sought out nature-based or recreational park activities (as opposed to historical or cultural activities). Even though a rise in national park visits in 2021 and 2022 could be attributed to pandemic-related behavior (the need for social distancing and/or the desire to get outside), people were flocking to parks prior to COVID-19. In fact, 33 parks set visitation records in 2019; 12 did so in 2022.

We also seek awe in man-made spectacle. Consider annual visitor numbers for the following:

• Golden Gate Bridge: 10 million
• : 4 million
• : 1.62 million

And what about the most awe-inducing experience ever manufactured: Space tourism. While catering to the wealthy for now, flying to space allows untrained people to enjoy something only a chosen few astronauts have been able to feel: the “overview effect,” a term coined by author Frank White for the shift in perspective that occurs in people who see Earth from space.

Upon his return from his Blue Origin flight, actor William Shatner was candid about his emotional experience. “I was crying,” he told NPR. “I didn’t know what I was crying about. It was the death that I saw in space and the lifeforce that I saw coming from the planet – the blue, the beige, and the white. And I realized one was death and the other was life.”

We want awe. We want to feel this way.
 

Adding everyday awe to your life

It may seem counterintuitive: Most awe-inspiring places are special occasion destinations, but in truth it’s possible to find awe each day. Outdoors and indoors.

Park Rx America, led by Robert Zarr, MD, MPH, boasts a network of nearly 1500 healthcare providers ready to “prescribe” walks or time in nature as part of healing. “Our growing community of ‘nature prescribers’ incorporate nature as a treatment option for their willing clients and patients,” Dr. Zarr said.

He also noted that awe is all about where you look, including in small places.

“Something as simple as going for a walk and stopping to notice the complexity of fractal patterns in the leaves, for example, leaves me with a sense of awe,” he said. “Although difficult to measure, there is no doubt that an important part of our health is intricately linked to these daily awe-filled moments.”

Nature is not the only way. Dr. Yaden suggested that going to a museum to see art or sporting events is also a way to experience the feeling.

An unexpected source of man-made awe: Screens. A study published in Nature showed that immersive video experiences (in this case, one achieved by virtual reality) were effective in eliciting an awe response in participants.

While virtual reality isn’t ubiquitous, immersive film experiences are. IMAX screens were created for just this purpose (as anyone who saw the Avatar films in this format can attest).

Is it perfect? No. But whether you’re witnessing a birth, hiking an autumn trail bathed in orange, or letting off a little gasp when you see Oppenheimer’s nuclear explosion in 70 mm, it all counts.

Because it’s not about the thing. It’s about your openness to be awed by the thing.

I’m a little like Dr. Zarr in that I can find wonder in the crystalline structures of a snowflake. And I also love to hike and inhale expansive views. If you can get to Switzerland, and specifically Zermatt, take the old red tram to the top. I highly recommend it.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m standing atop the Klein Matterhorn, staring out at the Alps, their moonscape peaks forming a jagged, terrifying, glorious white horizon.

I am small. But the emotions are huge. The joy: I get to be a part of all this today. The fear: It could kill me. More than kill me, it could consume me.

That’s what I always used to feel when training in Zermatt, Switzerland.

I was lucky. As a former U.S. Ski Team athlete, I was regularly able to experience such magnificent scenescapes – and feel the tactile insanity of it, too, the rise and fall of helicopters or trams taking us up the mountains, the slicing, frigid air at the summit, and the lurking on-edge feeling that you, tiny human, really aren’t meant to be standing where you are standing.

“Awe puts things in perspective,” said Craig Anderson, PhD, postdoctoral scholar at Washington University at St. Louis, and researcher of emotions and behavior. “It’s about feeling connected with people and part of the larger collective – and that makes it okay to feel small.”

Our modern world is at odds with awe. We tend to shrink into our daily lives, our problems, our devices, and the real-time emotional reactions to those things, especially anger.

It doesn’t have to be that way. A rising pile of research has shown how awe affects our brains and opens our minds – and we don’t have to be standing at the top of the Matterhorn to get the benefits.
 

‘In the upper reaches of pleasure and on the boundary of fear’

That’s how New York University ethical leadership professor Jonathan Haidt, PhD, and psychology professor Dacher Keltner, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley, defined awe in a seminal report from 2003.

The feeling is composed of two elements: perceived vastness (sensing something larger than ourselves) and accommodation (our need to process and understand that vastness). The researchers also wrote that awe could “change the course of life in profound and permanent ways.”

“There’s a correlation between people who are happier and those who report more feelings of awe,” said David Yaden, PhD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthor of “The Varieties of Spiritual Experience.” “It’s unclear, though, which way the causality runs. Is it that having more awe experiences makes people happier? Or that happy people have more awe. But there is a correlation.”

One aspect about awe that’s clear: When people experience it, they report feeling more connected. And that sense of connection can lead to prosocial behavior – such as serving others and engaging with one’s community.

“Feelings of isolation are quite difficult, and we’re social creatures, so when we feel connected, we can benefit from it,” Dr. Yaden said.

A 2022 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology revealed that awe “awakens self-transcendence, which in turn invigorates pursuit of the authentic self.”

While these effects can be seen as one individual’s benefits, the researchers posited that they also lead to prosocial behaviors. Another study conducted by the same scientists showed that awe led to greater-good behavior during the pandemic, to the tune of an increased willingness to donate blood. In this study, researchers also cited a correlation between feelings of awe and increased empathy.
 

The awe experience

Dr. Yaden joined Dr. Keltner and other researchers in creating a scale for the “awe experience,” and found six related factors: a feeling that time momentarily slows; a sense of self-diminishment (your sense of self becomes smaller); a sense of connectedness; feeling in the presence of something grand; the need to mentally process the experience; and physical changes, like goosebumps or feeling your jaw slightly drop.

“Any of these factors can be large or small,” Dr. Yaden noted, adding that awe can also feel positive or negative. A hurricane can instill awe, for example, and the experience might not be pleasant.

However, “it’s more common for the awe experience to be positive,” Dr. Yaden said.
 

How your brain processes awe

Functional MRI, by which brain activity is measured through blood flow, allows researchers to see what’s happening in the brain after an awe experience.

One study that was conducted in the Netherlands and was published in the journal Human Brain Mapping suggested that certain parts of the brain that are responsible for self-reflection were less “activated” when participants watched awe-inspiring videos.

The researchers posit that the “captivating nature of awe stimuli” could be responsible for such reductions, meaning participants’ brains were geared more toward feelings of connection with others or something greater – and a smaller sense of self.

Another study published in the journal Emotion revealed a link between awe and lower levels of inflammatory cytokines, so awe could have positive and potentially protective health benefits, as well.

And of course there are the physical and emotional benefits of nature, as dozens of studies reveal. Dr. Anderson’s research in the journal Emotion showed that nature “experiences” led to more feelings of awe and that the effects of nature also reduced stress and increased well-being.
 

Why we turn away from awe

The world we inhabit day to day isn’t conducive to experiencing awe – indoors, seated, reacting negatively to work or social media. The mentalities we forge because of this sometimes work against experiencing any form of awe.

Example: Some people don’t like to feel small. That requires a capacity for humility.

“That [feeling] can be threatening,” noted Dr. Anderson, who earned his doctorate studying as part of Dr. Keltner’s “Project Awe” research team at UC Berkeley.

The pandemic and politics and rise in angry Internet culture also contribute. And if you didn’t know, humans have a “negativity bias.”

“Our responses to stress tend to be stronger in magnitude than responses to positive things,” Dr. Anderson said. “Browsing the Internet and seeing negative things can hijack our responses. Anger really narrows our attention on what makes us angry.”

In that sense, anger is the antithesis of awe. As Dr. Anderson puts it: Awe broadens our attention to the world and “opens us up to other people and possibilities,” he said. “When we’re faced with daily hassles, when we experience something vast and awe-inspiring, those other problems aren’t as big of a deal.”
 

We crave awe in spite of ourselves

An awful lot of us are out there seeking awe, knowingly or not.

People have been stopping at scenic overlooks and climbing local peaks since forever, but let’s start with record-setting attendance at the most basic and accessible source of natural awe we have in the United States: national parks.

In 2022, 68% of the 312 million visitors sought out nature-based or recreational park activities (as opposed to historical or cultural activities). Even though a rise in national park visits in 2021 and 2022 could be attributed to pandemic-related behavior (the need for social distancing and/or the desire to get outside), people were flocking to parks prior to COVID-19. In fact, 33 parks set visitation records in 2019; 12 did so in 2022.

We also seek awe in man-made spectacle. Consider annual visitor numbers for the following:

• Golden Gate Bridge: 10 million
• : 4 million
• : 1.62 million

And what about the most awe-inducing experience ever manufactured: Space tourism. While catering to the wealthy for now, flying to space allows untrained people to enjoy something only a chosen few astronauts have been able to feel: the “overview effect,” a term coined by author Frank White for the shift in perspective that occurs in people who see Earth from space.

Upon his return from his Blue Origin flight, actor William Shatner was candid about his emotional experience. “I was crying,” he told NPR. “I didn’t know what I was crying about. It was the death that I saw in space and the lifeforce that I saw coming from the planet – the blue, the beige, and the white. And I realized one was death and the other was life.”

We want awe. We want to feel this way.
 

Adding everyday awe to your life

It may seem counterintuitive: Most awe-inspiring places are special occasion destinations, but in truth it’s possible to find awe each day. Outdoors and indoors.

Park Rx America, led by Robert Zarr, MD, MPH, boasts a network of nearly 1500 healthcare providers ready to “prescribe” walks or time in nature as part of healing. “Our growing community of ‘nature prescribers’ incorporate nature as a treatment option for their willing clients and patients,” Dr. Zarr said.

He also noted that awe is all about where you look, including in small places.

“Something as simple as going for a walk and stopping to notice the complexity of fractal patterns in the leaves, for example, leaves me with a sense of awe,” he said. “Although difficult to measure, there is no doubt that an important part of our health is intricately linked to these daily awe-filled moments.”

Nature is not the only way. Dr. Yaden suggested that going to a museum to see art or sporting events is also a way to experience the feeling.

An unexpected source of man-made awe: Screens. A study published in Nature showed that immersive video experiences (in this case, one achieved by virtual reality) were effective in eliciting an awe response in participants.

While virtual reality isn’t ubiquitous, immersive film experiences are. IMAX screens were created for just this purpose (as anyone who saw the Avatar films in this format can attest).

Is it perfect? No. But whether you’re witnessing a birth, hiking an autumn trail bathed in orange, or letting off a little gasp when you see Oppenheimer’s nuclear explosion in 70 mm, it all counts.

Because it’s not about the thing. It’s about your openness to be awed by the thing.

I’m a little like Dr. Zarr in that I can find wonder in the crystalline structures of a snowflake. And I also love to hike and inhale expansive views. If you can get to Switzerland, and specifically Zermatt, take the old red tram to the top. I highly recommend it.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A century ago, pediatricians began prescribing for children with intractable seizures the “keto diet,” which they also used to treat diabetes in children and adults. The low-carbohydrate, high-fat meals were designed to induce a near hypoglycemic state, forcing the body to use ketones for fuel instead of glucose.

The strategy fell out of favor after the discovery of insulin in the 1920s and the development of better antiseizure medications. But the epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States have revived interest in low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets. The global market for the ketogenic diet topped $11 billion in 2022.

Is it just a fad, or has the public – and science – caught up with the 100-year-old approach?

Although scientists still don’t know why the ketogenic diet was effective for controlling seizures, they have documented the effectiveness of ketogenic diets for the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome. An extensive body of literature has documented their use in athletes, but less is known regarding conditions such as heart disease and dementia.

Although the data are promising, much of the research has been conducted with mice or has come from trials of short-term use in humans. But recently, the National Institutes of Health awarded a $3.5 million federal grant for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to understand the effects of the long-term use of ketone ester supplementation on frailty. Developed 20 years ago, ketone esters are precursor molecules that the body quickly breaks down into ketone bodies when carbohydrates aren’t available.

“We’ve learned so much recently about how ketone bodies interact with aging biology,” John Newman, MD, PhD, of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif., and the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “And we’re only just starting to translate that out of the laboratory and into human studies to see how we can take advantage of ketone bodies to improve people’s health.”

Researchers from the Ohio State University and the University of Connecticut will also participate in the TAKEOFF (Targeting Aging With Ketone Ester in Older Adults for Function in Frailty) trial, which seeks to recruit a total of 180 people across the three sites.

Dr. Newman, assistant professor at the Buck Institute and associate professor in the division of geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said ketone bodies might have helpful applications in a variety of conditions of aging.

One of the common things that happen during aging is that tissues – such as of the heart, brain, and muscle – lose the ability to metabolize glucose effectively. Over time, resistance to insulin can develop.

Researchers can map out areas of the brain affected by Alzheimer’s disease, for example, by assessing where patients’ glucose uptake drops. In heart failure, the heart has difficulty obtaining enough energy from glucose and instead burns fats and ketone bodies.

How might ketones affect frailty in the elderly?

As a practicing geriatrician, Dr. Newman measures frailty by evaluating patients’ strength, endurance, and how they react to stresses. He and his colleagues believe certain molecular and cellular changes may make patients more likely to fall, to recover more slowly from surgery, or to lose mobility.

The main hypothesis of the TAKEOFF study is “that if you target these fundamental mechanisms of aging, you would be able to impact many different diseases of aging across different organ systems.”

Dr. Newman and Brianna Stubbs, DPhil, lead translational scientist at the Buck Institute, are still finishing up the BIKE (Buck Institute Ketone Ester) pilot study, which was the first double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the use of ketone ester supplements in adults older than 65 years. “The BIKE study is 12 weeks long. That’s actually the longest that anyone has studied ketone ester supplements in humans,” Dr. Stubbs said. The results will help them firm up the protocol for the TAKEOFF trial, which will likely treat patients for up to 24 weeks.

The primary outcome measure at all three study sites will be leg press strength. Researchers will also assess a variety of secondary outcomes that cover geriatric and cognitive function – measures such as gait speed and walking endurance, cognitive tests, and quality of life. And at the Buck, Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs will be evaluating the use of biomarkers that are often available in clinical labs – insulin, C-reactive protein, cystatin, and natriuretic peptide tests – for use as outcome measures that are responsive to treatment interventions and that can be used to track outcomes in future research on aging.

To achieve the goal of looking broadly at different organ systems likely to be affected by ketogenic supplements, they have assembled a team of coinvestigators with wide-ranging expertise in ketone and aging research.

Jeff Volek, PhD, professor in the department of human sciences at the Ohio State University, in Columbus, has contributed extensively to the literature on the use of ketogenic diets and supplements in a variety of populations, such as endurance athletes and patients with insulin resistance or diabetes.

Dr. Volek has demonstrated that ketones can have an anticatabolic effect on muscle tissue. “They could help offset some of the muscle loss with aging, which would in turn improve their physical functioning and ability to do daily activities,” he said.

The anti-inflammatory property of ketones may provide another benefit to older people. They can reduce oxidative stress, which is considered one of the chief pathologic mechanisms responsible for conditions such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, and arthritis.

In addition to the main study outcomes, Dr. Volek’s lab will study muscle physiology by performing biopsies at baseline and after consumption of ketogenic supplements to assess metabolic changes in muscle cells as they consume energy. Study participants will also undergo MRIs to detect subtle changes in muscle size before and after treatment.
 

From elite athletes to everyday agers

As a graduate student in Dr. Volek’s lab, Jenna Bartley, PhD, studied the effects of a ketogenic diet on elite athletes. But her work has taken a turn. Now an assistant professor in the department of immunology and the center on aging at the University of Connecticut in Farmington, she focuses on how immune responses and physical function decline with age.

“Ketogenic diets and the main ketone bodies – mainly beta-hydroxybutyrate – have been shown to have really powerful influences on a lot of things that go wrong with aging,” Dr. Bartley said. The decline in immune function in the elderly is not isolated to one cell type or even one arm of the immune system. There is reason to believe ketone supplementation could improve immune function.

“T cells really love ketones for energy,” Dr. Bartley said. Some data show that production of ketone bodies is impaired in individuals with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 infection have found that ketogenic diets led to improvement in the response to antiviral therapy.

In her lab, she’ll assess serum markers of inflammation in patients, as well as cytokine secretion following stimulation of T cells. T cells in culture from older people produce more inflammatory cytokines than those from younger people, leading to a dysfunctional immune response. Dr. Bartley is curious to see whether ketones can fix that. Additional work will include single-cell RNA sequencing of different classes of immune cells to investigate how ketones might change metabolic pathways.

Why use ketogenic supplements instead of having people consume ketogenic diets? “There are no cheat days in the keto diet,” Dr. Bartley said. Administering the diet requires intense supervision of research participants to enforce adherence. Use of supplements will improve compliance and likely make any findings translatable to more of the population, she said.

Drawbacks of the initial formulations of ketone esters, first developed 20 years ago, included high cost and terrible taste. Dr, Stubbs, a former world class rowing champion who competed in the Ironman World Championship last year, has firsthand experience with them as a research participant.

“It tasted like drinking nail polish,” she said. Recent advances in manufacturing have made them cheaper – roughly $5 per day – and more palatable, enabling research studies such as TAKEOFF.

For Dr. Newman, the studies are early building blocks in the emerging field of geroscience, which aims to translate fundamental mechanisms of aging into therapies to treat disease.

“We’re hoping that this will be an example of a proof-of-concept geroscience study that will really help to translate ketone body biology out of the laboratory and hopefully into a diversity of clinical applications,” he said. “There’s a lot we don’t understand still about the molecular mechanisms of frailty.”

Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs own stock in BHB Therapeutics Ltd, the company providing the product being studied, and are inventors on patents that relate to the product being studied. The Buck Institute has an ownership interest in BHB Therapeutics. Dr. Bartley and Dr. Volek report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A century ago, pediatricians began prescribing for children with intractable seizures the “keto diet,” which they also used to treat diabetes in children and adults. The low-carbohydrate, high-fat meals were designed to induce a near hypoglycemic state, forcing the body to use ketones for fuel instead of glucose.

The strategy fell out of favor after the discovery of insulin in the 1920s and the development of better antiseizure medications. But the epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States have revived interest in low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets. The global market for the ketogenic diet topped $11 billion in 2022.

Is it just a fad, or has the public – and science – caught up with the 100-year-old approach?

Although scientists still don’t know why the ketogenic diet was effective for controlling seizures, they have documented the effectiveness of ketogenic diets for the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome. An extensive body of literature has documented their use in athletes, but less is known regarding conditions such as heart disease and dementia.

Although the data are promising, much of the research has been conducted with mice or has come from trials of short-term use in humans. But recently, the National Institutes of Health awarded a $3.5 million federal grant for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to understand the effects of the long-term use of ketone ester supplementation on frailty. Developed 20 years ago, ketone esters are precursor molecules that the body quickly breaks down into ketone bodies when carbohydrates aren’t available.

“We’ve learned so much recently about how ketone bodies interact with aging biology,” John Newman, MD, PhD, of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif., and the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “And we’re only just starting to translate that out of the laboratory and into human studies to see how we can take advantage of ketone bodies to improve people’s health.”

Researchers from the Ohio State University and the University of Connecticut will also participate in the TAKEOFF (Targeting Aging With Ketone Ester in Older Adults for Function in Frailty) trial, which seeks to recruit a total of 180 people across the three sites.

Dr. Newman, assistant professor at the Buck Institute and associate professor in the division of geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said ketone bodies might have helpful applications in a variety of conditions of aging.

One of the common things that happen during aging is that tissues – such as of the heart, brain, and muscle – lose the ability to metabolize glucose effectively. Over time, resistance to insulin can develop.

Researchers can map out areas of the brain affected by Alzheimer’s disease, for example, by assessing where patients’ glucose uptake drops. In heart failure, the heart has difficulty obtaining enough energy from glucose and instead burns fats and ketone bodies.

How might ketones affect frailty in the elderly?

As a practicing geriatrician, Dr. Newman measures frailty by evaluating patients’ strength, endurance, and how they react to stresses. He and his colleagues believe certain molecular and cellular changes may make patients more likely to fall, to recover more slowly from surgery, or to lose mobility.

The main hypothesis of the TAKEOFF study is “that if you target these fundamental mechanisms of aging, you would be able to impact many different diseases of aging across different organ systems.”

Dr. Newman and Brianna Stubbs, DPhil, lead translational scientist at the Buck Institute, are still finishing up the BIKE (Buck Institute Ketone Ester) pilot study, which was the first double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the use of ketone ester supplements in adults older than 65 years. “The BIKE study is 12 weeks long. That’s actually the longest that anyone has studied ketone ester supplements in humans,” Dr. Stubbs said. The results will help them firm up the protocol for the TAKEOFF trial, which will likely treat patients for up to 24 weeks.

The primary outcome measure at all three study sites will be leg press strength. Researchers will also assess a variety of secondary outcomes that cover geriatric and cognitive function – measures such as gait speed and walking endurance, cognitive tests, and quality of life. And at the Buck, Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs will be evaluating the use of biomarkers that are often available in clinical labs – insulin, C-reactive protein, cystatin, and natriuretic peptide tests – for use as outcome measures that are responsive to treatment interventions and that can be used to track outcomes in future research on aging.

To achieve the goal of looking broadly at different organ systems likely to be affected by ketogenic supplements, they have assembled a team of coinvestigators with wide-ranging expertise in ketone and aging research.

Jeff Volek, PhD, professor in the department of human sciences at the Ohio State University, in Columbus, has contributed extensively to the literature on the use of ketogenic diets and supplements in a variety of populations, such as endurance athletes and patients with insulin resistance or diabetes.

Dr. Volek has demonstrated that ketones can have an anticatabolic effect on muscle tissue. “They could help offset some of the muscle loss with aging, which would in turn improve their physical functioning and ability to do daily activities,” he said.

The anti-inflammatory property of ketones may provide another benefit to older people. They can reduce oxidative stress, which is considered one of the chief pathologic mechanisms responsible for conditions such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, and arthritis.

In addition to the main study outcomes, Dr. Volek’s lab will study muscle physiology by performing biopsies at baseline and after consumption of ketogenic supplements to assess metabolic changes in muscle cells as they consume energy. Study participants will also undergo MRIs to detect subtle changes in muscle size before and after treatment.
 

From elite athletes to everyday agers

As a graduate student in Dr. Volek’s lab, Jenna Bartley, PhD, studied the effects of a ketogenic diet on elite athletes. But her work has taken a turn. Now an assistant professor in the department of immunology and the center on aging at the University of Connecticut in Farmington, she focuses on how immune responses and physical function decline with age.

“Ketogenic diets and the main ketone bodies – mainly beta-hydroxybutyrate – have been shown to have really powerful influences on a lot of things that go wrong with aging,” Dr. Bartley said. The decline in immune function in the elderly is not isolated to one cell type or even one arm of the immune system. There is reason to believe ketone supplementation could improve immune function.

“T cells really love ketones for energy,” Dr. Bartley said. Some data show that production of ketone bodies is impaired in individuals with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 infection have found that ketogenic diets led to improvement in the response to antiviral therapy.

In her lab, she’ll assess serum markers of inflammation in patients, as well as cytokine secretion following stimulation of T cells. T cells in culture from older people produce more inflammatory cytokines than those from younger people, leading to a dysfunctional immune response. Dr. Bartley is curious to see whether ketones can fix that. Additional work will include single-cell RNA sequencing of different classes of immune cells to investigate how ketones might change metabolic pathways.

Why use ketogenic supplements instead of having people consume ketogenic diets? “There are no cheat days in the keto diet,” Dr. Bartley said. Administering the diet requires intense supervision of research participants to enforce adherence. Use of supplements will improve compliance and likely make any findings translatable to more of the population, she said.

Drawbacks of the initial formulations of ketone esters, first developed 20 years ago, included high cost and terrible taste. Dr, Stubbs, a former world class rowing champion who competed in the Ironman World Championship last year, has firsthand experience with them as a research participant.

“It tasted like drinking nail polish,” she said. Recent advances in manufacturing have made them cheaper – roughly $5 per day – and more palatable, enabling research studies such as TAKEOFF.

For Dr. Newman, the studies are early building blocks in the emerging field of geroscience, which aims to translate fundamental mechanisms of aging into therapies to treat disease.

“We’re hoping that this will be an example of a proof-of-concept geroscience study that will really help to translate ketone body biology out of the laboratory and hopefully into a diversity of clinical applications,” he said. “There’s a lot we don’t understand still about the molecular mechanisms of frailty.”

Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs own stock in BHB Therapeutics Ltd, the company providing the product being studied, and are inventors on patents that relate to the product being studied. The Buck Institute has an ownership interest in BHB Therapeutics. Dr. Bartley and Dr. Volek report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A century ago, pediatricians began prescribing for children with intractable seizures the “keto diet,” which they also used to treat diabetes in children and adults. The low-carbohydrate, high-fat meals were designed to induce a near hypoglycemic state, forcing the body to use ketones for fuel instead of glucose.

The strategy fell out of favor after the discovery of insulin in the 1920s and the development of better antiseizure medications. But the epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States have revived interest in low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets. The global market for the ketogenic diet topped $11 billion in 2022.

Is it just a fad, or has the public – and science – caught up with the 100-year-old approach?

Although scientists still don’t know why the ketogenic diet was effective for controlling seizures, they have documented the effectiveness of ketogenic diets for the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome. An extensive body of literature has documented their use in athletes, but less is known regarding conditions such as heart disease and dementia.

Although the data are promising, much of the research has been conducted with mice or has come from trials of short-term use in humans. But recently, the National Institutes of Health awarded a $3.5 million federal grant for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to understand the effects of the long-term use of ketone ester supplementation on frailty. Developed 20 years ago, ketone esters are precursor molecules that the body quickly breaks down into ketone bodies when carbohydrates aren’t available.

“We’ve learned so much recently about how ketone bodies interact with aging biology,” John Newman, MD, PhD, of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif., and the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “And we’re only just starting to translate that out of the laboratory and into human studies to see how we can take advantage of ketone bodies to improve people’s health.”

Researchers from the Ohio State University and the University of Connecticut will also participate in the TAKEOFF (Targeting Aging With Ketone Ester in Older Adults for Function in Frailty) trial, which seeks to recruit a total of 180 people across the three sites.

Dr. Newman, assistant professor at the Buck Institute and associate professor in the division of geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said ketone bodies might have helpful applications in a variety of conditions of aging.

One of the common things that happen during aging is that tissues – such as of the heart, brain, and muscle – lose the ability to metabolize glucose effectively. Over time, resistance to insulin can develop.

Researchers can map out areas of the brain affected by Alzheimer’s disease, for example, by assessing where patients’ glucose uptake drops. In heart failure, the heart has difficulty obtaining enough energy from glucose and instead burns fats and ketone bodies.

How might ketones affect frailty in the elderly?

As a practicing geriatrician, Dr. Newman measures frailty by evaluating patients’ strength, endurance, and how they react to stresses. He and his colleagues believe certain molecular and cellular changes may make patients more likely to fall, to recover more slowly from surgery, or to lose mobility.

The main hypothesis of the TAKEOFF study is “that if you target these fundamental mechanisms of aging, you would be able to impact many different diseases of aging across different organ systems.”

Dr. Newman and Brianna Stubbs, DPhil, lead translational scientist at the Buck Institute, are still finishing up the BIKE (Buck Institute Ketone Ester) pilot study, which was the first double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the use of ketone ester supplements in adults older than 65 years. “The BIKE study is 12 weeks long. That’s actually the longest that anyone has studied ketone ester supplements in humans,” Dr. Stubbs said. The results will help them firm up the protocol for the TAKEOFF trial, which will likely treat patients for up to 24 weeks.

The primary outcome measure at all three study sites will be leg press strength. Researchers will also assess a variety of secondary outcomes that cover geriatric and cognitive function – measures such as gait speed and walking endurance, cognitive tests, and quality of life. And at the Buck, Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs will be evaluating the use of biomarkers that are often available in clinical labs – insulin, C-reactive protein, cystatin, and natriuretic peptide tests – for use as outcome measures that are responsive to treatment interventions and that can be used to track outcomes in future research on aging.

To achieve the goal of looking broadly at different organ systems likely to be affected by ketogenic supplements, they have assembled a team of coinvestigators with wide-ranging expertise in ketone and aging research.

Jeff Volek, PhD, professor in the department of human sciences at the Ohio State University, in Columbus, has contributed extensively to the literature on the use of ketogenic diets and supplements in a variety of populations, such as endurance athletes and patients with insulin resistance or diabetes.

Dr. Volek has demonstrated that ketones can have an anticatabolic effect on muscle tissue. “They could help offset some of the muscle loss with aging, which would in turn improve their physical functioning and ability to do daily activities,” he said.

The anti-inflammatory property of ketones may provide another benefit to older people. They can reduce oxidative stress, which is considered one of the chief pathologic mechanisms responsible for conditions such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, and arthritis.

In addition to the main study outcomes, Dr. Volek’s lab will study muscle physiology by performing biopsies at baseline and after consumption of ketogenic supplements to assess metabolic changes in muscle cells as they consume energy. Study participants will also undergo MRIs to detect subtle changes in muscle size before and after treatment.
 

From elite athletes to everyday agers

As a graduate student in Dr. Volek’s lab, Jenna Bartley, PhD, studied the effects of a ketogenic diet on elite athletes. But her work has taken a turn. Now an assistant professor in the department of immunology and the center on aging at the University of Connecticut in Farmington, she focuses on how immune responses and physical function decline with age.

“Ketogenic diets and the main ketone bodies – mainly beta-hydroxybutyrate – have been shown to have really powerful influences on a lot of things that go wrong with aging,” Dr. Bartley said. The decline in immune function in the elderly is not isolated to one cell type or even one arm of the immune system. There is reason to believe ketone supplementation could improve immune function.

“T cells really love ketones for energy,” Dr. Bartley said. Some data show that production of ketone bodies is impaired in individuals with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 infection have found that ketogenic diets led to improvement in the response to antiviral therapy.

In her lab, she’ll assess serum markers of inflammation in patients, as well as cytokine secretion following stimulation of T cells. T cells in culture from older people produce more inflammatory cytokines than those from younger people, leading to a dysfunctional immune response. Dr. Bartley is curious to see whether ketones can fix that. Additional work will include single-cell RNA sequencing of different classes of immune cells to investigate how ketones might change metabolic pathways.

Why use ketogenic supplements instead of having people consume ketogenic diets? “There are no cheat days in the keto diet,” Dr. Bartley said. Administering the diet requires intense supervision of research participants to enforce adherence. Use of supplements will improve compliance and likely make any findings translatable to more of the population, she said.

Drawbacks of the initial formulations of ketone esters, first developed 20 years ago, included high cost and terrible taste. Dr, Stubbs, a former world class rowing champion who competed in the Ironman World Championship last year, has firsthand experience with them as a research participant.

“It tasted like drinking nail polish,” she said. Recent advances in manufacturing have made them cheaper – roughly $5 per day – and more palatable, enabling research studies such as TAKEOFF.

For Dr. Newman, the studies are early building blocks in the emerging field of geroscience, which aims to translate fundamental mechanisms of aging into therapies to treat disease.

“We’re hoping that this will be an example of a proof-of-concept geroscience study that will really help to translate ketone body biology out of the laboratory and hopefully into a diversity of clinical applications,” he said. “There’s a lot we don’t understand still about the molecular mechanisms of frailty.”

Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs own stock in BHB Therapeutics Ltd, the company providing the product being studied, and are inventors on patents that relate to the product being studied. The Buck Institute has an ownership interest in BHB Therapeutics. Dr. Bartley and Dr. Volek report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The death of a patient comes with many challenges for physicians, including a range of emotional and professional issues. Beyond those concerns, some physicians and their practices must also consider how to collect on any outstanding bill that might go unpaid after a patient’s death.

“When a patient passes away, obviously there is, unfortunately, a lot of paperwork and stress for families, and it’s a very difficult situation,” says Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Talking about finances in that moment can be difficult and uncomfortable, and one thing I’d recommend is that the physicians themselves not get involved.”

Instead, Dr. Jain said, someone in the billing department in the practice or the hospital should take a lead on dealing with any outstanding debts.

“That doctor-patient relationship is a very precious relationship, so you don’t want to mix that financial aspect of providing care with the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Jain said. “That’s one thing that’s really important.”

The best approach in such situations is for practices to have a standing policy in place that dictates how to handle bills once a patient has died.

In most cases, the executor of the patient’s will must inform all creditors, including doctors, that the decedent has died, but sometimes there’s a delay.
 

Hoping the doctor’s office writes it off

“Even though the person in charge of the estate is supposed to contact the doctor’s office and let them know when a patient has passed, that doesn’t always happen,” says Hope Wen, head of billing at practice management platform Soundry Health. “It can be very challenging to track down that information, and sometimes they’re just crossing their fingers hoping that the doctor’s office will just write off the balance, which they often do.”

Some offices use a service that compares accounts receivable lists to Social Security death files and state records to identify deaths more quickly. Some physicians might also use a debt collection agency or an attorney who has experience collecting decedent debts and dealing with executors and probate courts.

Once the practice becomes aware that a patient has died, it can no longer send communications to the name and address on file, although it can continue to go through the billing process with the insurer for any bills incurred up to the date of the death.

At that point, the estate becomes responsible for the debt, and all communication must go to the executor of the estate (in some states, this might be called a personal representative). The office can reach out to any contacts on file to see if they are able to identify the executor.

“You want to do that in a compassionate way,” says Jack Brown III, JD, MBA, president of Gulf Coast Collection Bureau. “You’ll tell them you’re sorry for their loss, but you’re wondering who is responsible for the estate. Once you’ve identified that person and gotten their letter of administration from the probate court or a power of attorney, then you can speak with that person as if they were the patient.”

The names of executors are also public record and are available through the probate court (sometimes called the surrogate court) in the county where the decedent lived.

“Even if there’s no will or no executive named, the court will appoint an administrator for the estate, which is usually a family member,” said Robert Bernstein, an estate lawyer in Parsippany, N.J. “Their information will be on file in the court.”
 

Insurance coverage

Typically, insurance will pay for treatment (after deductibles and copays) up until the date of the patient’s death. But, of course, it can take months for some insurance companies to make their final payments, allowing physicians to know exactly how much they’re owed by that estate. In such cases, it’s important for physicians to know the rules in the decedent’s state for how long they have to file a claim.

Most states require that claims occur within 6-9 months of the person’s death. However, in some states, claimants can continue to file for much longer if the estate has not yet paid out all of its assets.

“Sometimes there is real estate to sell or a business to wind down, and it can take years for the estate to distribute all of the assets,” Mr. Bernstein says. “If it’s a year later and they still haven’t distributed the assets, the physician can still file the claim and should be paid.”

In some cases, especially if the decedent received compassionate, quality care, their family will want to make good on any outstanding debts to the health care providers who took care of their loved ones in their final days. In other cases, especially when a family member has had a long illness, their assets have been depleted over time or were transferred to other family members so that there is little left in the estate itself when the patient dies.

Regardless of other circumstances, the estate alone is responsible for such payments, and family members, including spouses and children, typically have no liability. (Though rarely enforced, some states do have filial responsibility laws that could hold children responsible for their parents’ debts, including unpaid medical bills. In addition, states with community property laws might require a surviving spouse to cover their partner’s debt, even after death.)

The probate process varies from state to state, but in general, the probate system and the executor will gather all existing assets and then notify all creditors about how to submit a claim. Typically, the claim will need to include information about how much is owed and documentation, such as bills and an explanation of benefits to back up the claim. It should be borne in mind that even those who’ve passed away have privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so practices must be careful as to how much information they’re sharing through their claim.

Once the estate has received all the claims, the executor will follow a priority of claims, starting with secured creditors. Typically, medical bills, especially those incurred in the last 90 days of the decedent’s life, have priority in the probate process, Mr. Brown says.
 

How to minimize losses

In that case, the practice would write off the unpaid debt as a business loss. If there are not enough assets in the estate to pay all claims, the executor will follow a state schedule that apportions those assets that are available.

There are some steps that practices can take to protect themselves from incurring such losses. For example, before beginning treatment, practices might consider asking patients to name a guarantor, who will essentially promise to cover any outstanding debts that the patient incurs.

To be binding, the office will need a signature from both the patient and the guarantor. Some offices may also keep a patient credit card number on file with written authorization that they can use to pay bills that are past due, although this payment method would no longer be valid after a patient dies.

While it’s important for all physicians to document and verify the financial information for their patients, oncologists often must consider an additional layer of fiduciary responsibility when it comes to their patients. Ms. Wen suggests that oncology offices check in with insurance companies to determine whether a patient has exhausted their benefits.

“That can happen with cancer patients, depending on how long they’ve been receiving treatment and what type of treatment they’ve been getting,” she said. “Some of the clinical trials, insurance will pay for them, but they’re really expensive and can get toward that max. So knowing where they are with their insurance coverage is big.”

When time is of the essence, some patients will choose to go forward with a treatment before receiving insurance approval. In those cases, the office must have an additional conversation in which the costs of the treatment are discussed. The office should obtain written confirmation of who will pay if the insurer does not, Ms. Wen said. While it’s the patient’s responsibility to keep track of their insurance benefits, oncology practices and hospitals must also exercise due diligence in monitoring the benefits that are available.

“That’s part of their contract with insurance companies if they’re in network, helping patients understand their benefits,” Ms. Wen saids.

It’s also important for practices to keep clear, consistent records to make it easier to identify outstanding bills and the correct contact information for them. If bills had gone unpaid prior to a patient’s death and the office started legal action and received a judgment, that claim would typically go ahead of other creditors’ claims.

Dr. Jain says that some practices might also consider keeping a financial adviser or social worker on staff who can assist patients and their families with understanding their out-of-pocket costs for treatment.

“Financial toxicity in oncology and medical care is a very real problem,” she says. “At the beginning of the relationship, I recommend that my patients get set up with a financial specialist that can help them navigate that aspect, not only when a patient passes away but during the process of receiving treatment, so they’re not shocked by the bills.”

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

The death of a patient comes with many challenges for physicians, including a range of emotional and professional issues. Beyond those concerns, some physicians and their practices must also consider how to collect on any outstanding bill that might go unpaid after a patient’s death.

“When a patient passes away, obviously there is, unfortunately, a lot of paperwork and stress for families, and it’s a very difficult situation,” says Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Talking about finances in that moment can be difficult and uncomfortable, and one thing I’d recommend is that the physicians themselves not get involved.”

Instead, Dr. Jain said, someone in the billing department in the practice or the hospital should take a lead on dealing with any outstanding debts.

“That doctor-patient relationship is a very precious relationship, so you don’t want to mix that financial aspect of providing care with the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Jain said. “That’s one thing that’s really important.”

The best approach in such situations is for practices to have a standing policy in place that dictates how to handle bills once a patient has died.

In most cases, the executor of the patient’s will must inform all creditors, including doctors, that the decedent has died, but sometimes there’s a delay.
 

Hoping the doctor’s office writes it off

“Even though the person in charge of the estate is supposed to contact the doctor’s office and let them know when a patient has passed, that doesn’t always happen,” says Hope Wen, head of billing at practice management platform Soundry Health. “It can be very challenging to track down that information, and sometimes they’re just crossing their fingers hoping that the doctor’s office will just write off the balance, which they often do.”

Some offices use a service that compares accounts receivable lists to Social Security death files and state records to identify deaths more quickly. Some physicians might also use a debt collection agency or an attorney who has experience collecting decedent debts and dealing with executors and probate courts.

Once the practice becomes aware that a patient has died, it can no longer send communications to the name and address on file, although it can continue to go through the billing process with the insurer for any bills incurred up to the date of the death.

At that point, the estate becomes responsible for the debt, and all communication must go to the executor of the estate (in some states, this might be called a personal representative). The office can reach out to any contacts on file to see if they are able to identify the executor.

“You want to do that in a compassionate way,” says Jack Brown III, JD, MBA, president of Gulf Coast Collection Bureau. “You’ll tell them you’re sorry for their loss, but you’re wondering who is responsible for the estate. Once you’ve identified that person and gotten their letter of administration from the probate court or a power of attorney, then you can speak with that person as if they were the patient.”

The names of executors are also public record and are available through the probate court (sometimes called the surrogate court) in the county where the decedent lived.

“Even if there’s no will or no executive named, the court will appoint an administrator for the estate, which is usually a family member,” said Robert Bernstein, an estate lawyer in Parsippany, N.J. “Their information will be on file in the court.”
 

Insurance coverage

Typically, insurance will pay for treatment (after deductibles and copays) up until the date of the patient’s death. But, of course, it can take months for some insurance companies to make their final payments, allowing physicians to know exactly how much they’re owed by that estate. In such cases, it’s important for physicians to know the rules in the decedent’s state for how long they have to file a claim.

Most states require that claims occur within 6-9 months of the person’s death. However, in some states, claimants can continue to file for much longer if the estate has not yet paid out all of its assets.

“Sometimes there is real estate to sell or a business to wind down, and it can take years for the estate to distribute all of the assets,” Mr. Bernstein says. “If it’s a year later and they still haven’t distributed the assets, the physician can still file the claim and should be paid.”

In some cases, especially if the decedent received compassionate, quality care, their family will want to make good on any outstanding debts to the health care providers who took care of their loved ones in their final days. In other cases, especially when a family member has had a long illness, their assets have been depleted over time or were transferred to other family members so that there is little left in the estate itself when the patient dies.

Regardless of other circumstances, the estate alone is responsible for such payments, and family members, including spouses and children, typically have no liability. (Though rarely enforced, some states do have filial responsibility laws that could hold children responsible for their parents’ debts, including unpaid medical bills. In addition, states with community property laws might require a surviving spouse to cover their partner’s debt, even after death.)

The probate process varies from state to state, but in general, the probate system and the executor will gather all existing assets and then notify all creditors about how to submit a claim. Typically, the claim will need to include information about how much is owed and documentation, such as bills and an explanation of benefits to back up the claim. It should be borne in mind that even those who’ve passed away have privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so practices must be careful as to how much information they’re sharing through their claim.

Once the estate has received all the claims, the executor will follow a priority of claims, starting with secured creditors. Typically, medical bills, especially those incurred in the last 90 days of the decedent’s life, have priority in the probate process, Mr. Brown says.
 

How to minimize losses

In that case, the practice would write off the unpaid debt as a business loss. If there are not enough assets in the estate to pay all claims, the executor will follow a state schedule that apportions those assets that are available.

There are some steps that practices can take to protect themselves from incurring such losses. For example, before beginning treatment, practices might consider asking patients to name a guarantor, who will essentially promise to cover any outstanding debts that the patient incurs.

To be binding, the office will need a signature from both the patient and the guarantor. Some offices may also keep a patient credit card number on file with written authorization that they can use to pay bills that are past due, although this payment method would no longer be valid after a patient dies.

While it’s important for all physicians to document and verify the financial information for their patients, oncologists often must consider an additional layer of fiduciary responsibility when it comes to their patients. Ms. Wen suggests that oncology offices check in with insurance companies to determine whether a patient has exhausted their benefits.

“That can happen with cancer patients, depending on how long they’ve been receiving treatment and what type of treatment they’ve been getting,” she said. “Some of the clinical trials, insurance will pay for them, but they’re really expensive and can get toward that max. So knowing where they are with their insurance coverage is big.”

When time is of the essence, some patients will choose to go forward with a treatment before receiving insurance approval. In those cases, the office must have an additional conversation in which the costs of the treatment are discussed. The office should obtain written confirmation of who will pay if the insurer does not, Ms. Wen said. While it’s the patient’s responsibility to keep track of their insurance benefits, oncology practices and hospitals must also exercise due diligence in monitoring the benefits that are available.

“That’s part of their contract with insurance companies if they’re in network, helping patients understand their benefits,” Ms. Wen saids.

It’s also important for practices to keep clear, consistent records to make it easier to identify outstanding bills and the correct contact information for them. If bills had gone unpaid prior to a patient’s death and the office started legal action and received a judgment, that claim would typically go ahead of other creditors’ claims.

Dr. Jain says that some practices might also consider keeping a financial adviser or social worker on staff who can assist patients and their families with understanding their out-of-pocket costs for treatment.

“Financial toxicity in oncology and medical care is a very real problem,” she says. “At the beginning of the relationship, I recommend that my patients get set up with a financial specialist that can help them navigate that aspect, not only when a patient passes away but during the process of receiving treatment, so they’re not shocked by the bills.”

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

The death of a patient comes with many challenges for physicians, including a range of emotional and professional issues. Beyond those concerns, some physicians and their practices must also consider how to collect on any outstanding bill that might go unpaid after a patient’s death.

“When a patient passes away, obviously there is, unfortunately, a lot of paperwork and stress for families, and it’s a very difficult situation,” says Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Talking about finances in that moment can be difficult and uncomfortable, and one thing I’d recommend is that the physicians themselves not get involved.”

Instead, Dr. Jain said, someone in the billing department in the practice or the hospital should take a lead on dealing with any outstanding debts.

“That doctor-patient relationship is a very precious relationship, so you don’t want to mix that financial aspect of providing care with the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Jain said. “That’s one thing that’s really important.”

The best approach in such situations is for practices to have a standing policy in place that dictates how to handle bills once a patient has died.

In most cases, the executor of the patient’s will must inform all creditors, including doctors, that the decedent has died, but sometimes there’s a delay.
 

Hoping the doctor’s office writes it off

“Even though the person in charge of the estate is supposed to contact the doctor’s office and let them know when a patient has passed, that doesn’t always happen,” says Hope Wen, head of billing at practice management platform Soundry Health. “It can be very challenging to track down that information, and sometimes they’re just crossing their fingers hoping that the doctor’s office will just write off the balance, which they often do.”

Some offices use a service that compares accounts receivable lists to Social Security death files and state records to identify deaths more quickly. Some physicians might also use a debt collection agency or an attorney who has experience collecting decedent debts and dealing with executors and probate courts.

Once the practice becomes aware that a patient has died, it can no longer send communications to the name and address on file, although it can continue to go through the billing process with the insurer for any bills incurred up to the date of the death.

At that point, the estate becomes responsible for the debt, and all communication must go to the executor of the estate (in some states, this might be called a personal representative). The office can reach out to any contacts on file to see if they are able to identify the executor.

“You want to do that in a compassionate way,” says Jack Brown III, JD, MBA, president of Gulf Coast Collection Bureau. “You’ll tell them you’re sorry for their loss, but you’re wondering who is responsible for the estate. Once you’ve identified that person and gotten their letter of administration from the probate court or a power of attorney, then you can speak with that person as if they were the patient.”

The names of executors are also public record and are available through the probate court (sometimes called the surrogate court) in the county where the decedent lived.

“Even if there’s no will or no executive named, the court will appoint an administrator for the estate, which is usually a family member,” said Robert Bernstein, an estate lawyer in Parsippany, N.J. “Their information will be on file in the court.”
 

Insurance coverage

Typically, insurance will pay for treatment (after deductibles and copays) up until the date of the patient’s death. But, of course, it can take months for some insurance companies to make their final payments, allowing physicians to know exactly how much they’re owed by that estate. In such cases, it’s important for physicians to know the rules in the decedent’s state for how long they have to file a claim.

Most states require that claims occur within 6-9 months of the person’s death. However, in some states, claimants can continue to file for much longer if the estate has not yet paid out all of its assets.

“Sometimes there is real estate to sell or a business to wind down, and it can take years for the estate to distribute all of the assets,” Mr. Bernstein says. “If it’s a year later and they still haven’t distributed the assets, the physician can still file the claim and should be paid.”

In some cases, especially if the decedent received compassionate, quality care, their family will want to make good on any outstanding debts to the health care providers who took care of their loved ones in their final days. In other cases, especially when a family member has had a long illness, their assets have been depleted over time or were transferred to other family members so that there is little left in the estate itself when the patient dies.

Regardless of other circumstances, the estate alone is responsible for such payments, and family members, including spouses and children, typically have no liability. (Though rarely enforced, some states do have filial responsibility laws that could hold children responsible for their parents’ debts, including unpaid medical bills. In addition, states with community property laws might require a surviving spouse to cover their partner’s debt, even after death.)

The probate process varies from state to state, but in general, the probate system and the executor will gather all existing assets and then notify all creditors about how to submit a claim. Typically, the claim will need to include information about how much is owed and documentation, such as bills and an explanation of benefits to back up the claim. It should be borne in mind that even those who’ve passed away have privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, so practices must be careful as to how much information they’re sharing through their claim.

Once the estate has received all the claims, the executor will follow a priority of claims, starting with secured creditors. Typically, medical bills, especially those incurred in the last 90 days of the decedent’s life, have priority in the probate process, Mr. Brown says.
 

How to minimize losses

In that case, the practice would write off the unpaid debt as a business loss. If there are not enough assets in the estate to pay all claims, the executor will follow a state schedule that apportions those assets that are available.

There are some steps that practices can take to protect themselves from incurring such losses. For example, before beginning treatment, practices might consider asking patients to name a guarantor, who will essentially promise to cover any outstanding debts that the patient incurs.

To be binding, the office will need a signature from both the patient and the guarantor. Some offices may also keep a patient credit card number on file with written authorization that they can use to pay bills that are past due, although this payment method would no longer be valid after a patient dies.

While it’s important for all physicians to document and verify the financial information for their patients, oncologists often must consider an additional layer of fiduciary responsibility when it comes to their patients. Ms. Wen suggests that oncology offices check in with insurance companies to determine whether a patient has exhausted their benefits.

“That can happen with cancer patients, depending on how long they’ve been receiving treatment and what type of treatment they’ve been getting,” she said. “Some of the clinical trials, insurance will pay for them, but they’re really expensive and can get toward that max. So knowing where they are with their insurance coverage is big.”

When time is of the essence, some patients will choose to go forward with a treatment before receiving insurance approval. In those cases, the office must have an additional conversation in which the costs of the treatment are discussed. The office should obtain written confirmation of who will pay if the insurer does not, Ms. Wen said. While it’s the patient’s responsibility to keep track of their insurance benefits, oncology practices and hospitals must also exercise due diligence in monitoring the benefits that are available.

“That’s part of their contract with insurance companies if they’re in network, helping patients understand their benefits,” Ms. Wen saids.

It’s also important for practices to keep clear, consistent records to make it easier to identify outstanding bills and the correct contact information for them. If bills had gone unpaid prior to a patient’s death and the office started legal action and received a judgment, that claim would typically go ahead of other creditors’ claims.

Dr. Jain says that some practices might also consider keeping a financial adviser or social worker on staff who can assist patients and their families with understanding their out-of-pocket costs for treatment.

“Financial toxicity in oncology and medical care is a very real problem,” she says. “At the beginning of the relationship, I recommend that my patients get set up with a financial specialist that can help them navigate that aspect, not only when a patient passes away but during the process of receiving treatment, so they’re not shocked by the bills.”

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